SIT N 


Wr en 
eier pene 


ng 
Sarr 








Da Yea 
Division Ri Wag 
Secti 884 
iS, 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2009 


https://archive.org/details/criticalexegetico5meye 









ne un ah 


BRENDIAUIM 


ye. Be 


BP A Byte GY wht 
an fang, 
! Du . = 


at 7 ir Pi 7 vi ; 


WAY 


tut 





Ty a ae { 
~ GRITICAL AND EXEGETIOALS 1 


or! 
ot 


— 


HANDBOOK 
THE ACTS OF TIR-APUSTLES. 


HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, Tz.D., 


OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER. 


TRANSLATED FROM THE FOURTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY 
REV. PATON J. GLOAG, D.D. 


THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY 
WILLIAM P. DICKSON, D.D., 


PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW. 


WITH PREFACE, INDEX, AND SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES TO THE 
AMERICAN EDITION BY 


REV. WILLIAM ORMISTON, D.D., LL.D. 


SHCOND EDITION. 


NEW YORK: 
FUNK & WAGNALLS, PUBLISHERS, 
10 AND 12 Dery STREET. 
1884. 


Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1883, 
By FUNK & WAGNALLS, 
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C. 


PREFACE TO THE FOURTH GERMAN EDITION. 





Tux third edition of this Commentary appeared in the year 1861. 
The accessions to the exegetical literature of the Book of Acts since that 
date have been on the whole meagre; and they have been chiefly 
directed to the investigation of certain specially important facts which 
are recorded in the Book, as regards their miraculous character and 
their relation to the Pauline Epistles.” The critical researches as to this 
canonical writing are, doubtless, not yet concluded ; but they are in 
such a position that we must regard the attempts—prosecuted with so 
much keenness, confidence, and acuteness—to make the Book of Acts 
appear an intentional medley of truth and fiction like a historical 
romance, as having utterly failed. To this result several able apologetic 
works have within the last ten years contributed their part, while the 
criticism which finds ‘‘ purpose’’ everywhere has been less active, and 
has not brought forward arguments more cogent than those already so 
often discussed. Even the new edition of the chief work of Baur, in 
which its now departed author has devoted his last scientific labours to 
the contents of the Acts of the Apostles, furnishes nothing essentially 
new, and it touches only here and there on the objections urged by his 
opponents. 


1 There has just appeared in the first part of the Stud. und Krit. for 1870 the 
beginning of an elaborate rejoinder to Holsten, by Beyschlag : ‘‘ die Visions- 
hypothese in ihrer neuesten Begriindung,’’ which I can only mention here as an 
addition to the literature noted at ix. 3-9. [Soon after this preface was written, 
there appeared Dr. Overbeck’s Commentary, which, while formally professing 
to be a new edition of de Wette’s work, is in greater part an extravagant appli- 
cation to the Book of Acts of a detailed historical criticism which de Wette 
himself strongly condemned. It is an important and interesting illustration of 
the Tübingen critical method (above referred to) as pushed to its utmost limits ; 
but it possesses little independent value from an exegetical point of view. 

WEB) 


iv PREFACE TO THE FOURTH GERMAN EDITION. 


With reference to the method of judging the New Testament writ- 

ings, which Dr. Baur started, and in which he has taken the lead, I 
cannot but regret that, in controversy with it, we should hear people 
speak of ‘‘ believing’’ and ‘‘ critical’? theology as of things necessarily 
contrasted and mutually exclusive. It would thus seem, as if faith must 
of necessity be uncritical, and criticism unbelieving. Luther himself 
combined the majestic heroism of his faith with all freedom, nay, bold- 
ness of criticism, and as to the latter, he laid stress even on the dog- 
matic side (‘‘ what makes for Christ ’’),—a course, no doubt, which ded 
him to mistaken judgments regarding some N. T. writings, easily intel- 
ligible as it may appear in itself from the personal idiosyncrasy of the 
great man, from his position as a Reformer, and from the standpoint of 
science in his time. As regards the Acts of the Apostles, however, 
which he would have called ‘‘ a gloss on the Epistles of St. Paul,’” he 
with his correct and sure tact discerned and hit upon the exact opposite 
of what recent criticism has found : ‘‘ Thou findest here in this book a 
beautiful mirror, wherein thou mayest see that this is true : Sola fides 
justificat.’? The contrary character of definite ‘* purpose,’’ which has 
in our days been ascribed to the book, necessarily involves the corre- 
sponding lateness of historical date, to which these critics have not hesi- 
tated to transfer it. But this very position requires, in my judgment, 
an assent on their part to a critical impossibility. For—as hardly a 
single unbiassed person would venture to question—the author has not 
made use of any of the Pauline Epistles preserved to us ; and therefore 
these letters cannot have been accessible to him when he was engaged in 
the collection of his materials or in the composition of his work, be- 
cause he would certainly have been far from leaving unused historical 
sources of such productiveness and of so direct and supreme authen- 
ticity, had they stood at his command. How is it to be still supposed, 
then, that he could have written his work in an age, in which the Epis- 
tles of the apostle were already everywhere diffused by means of copies 
and had become a common possession of the church,—an age, for 
which we have the oldest testimony in the ¢anon itself from the un- 
known author of the so-called Second Epistle of Peter (iii. 15 f.) ? 

It is my most earnest desire that the labour, which I have gladly de- 
voted, as in duty bound, to this new edition, may be serviceable to the 
correct understanding of the book, and to a right estimate of its histor- 
ical contents ; and to these ends may God give it His blessing ! 

I may add that, to my great regret, I did not receive the latest work 
of Wieseler,’ which presents the renewed fruit of profound and inde- 





1 Beiträge zur richtigen Würdigung der Evangelien und der evangel. Geschichte, 
Gotha, 1869. 


PREFACE TO THE FOURTH GERMAN EDITION. Vv 


pendent study, till nearly half of my book was already finished and in 
type. But it has reference for the most part to the Gospels and their 
Chronology, the investigation of which, however, extends in many cases 
also into the Book of Acts. The arguments adduced by Wieseler in his 
tenth Beitrag, with his wonted thoughtfulness and depth of research, in 
proof of the agreement of Luke xxiv. 44 ff. and Acts i. 1, have not 
availed to shake me in my view that here the Book of Acts follows a 
different tradition from the Gospel. 


; Dr. MEYER. 
Hannover, October 22, 1869. 


PREFATORY NOTE. 


Tie explanations prefixed to previously issued volumes of this Com- 
mentary [see especially the General Preface to Romans, vol. I.] regard- 
ing the principles on which the translation has been undertaken, and the 
method followed in its execution, are equally applicable to the portion 
now issued. | 


W. Pep 


Guascow COLLEGE, May, 1877. 


EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. 


[For commentaries and collections of notes embracing the whole New 
Testament, see Preface to the Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew. 
The following list consists mainly of works which deal with the Acts of 
the Apostles in particular. Several of the works named, especially of the 
older, are chiefly doctrinal or homiletic in their character; while some 
more recent books, dealing with the history and chronology of the apos- 
tolic age, or with the life of St. Paul, or with the genuineness of the Book 
of Acts, have been included because of the epecial bearing of their discus- 
sions on its contents. Monographs on chapters or sections are generally 
noticed by Meyer in loc. The editions quoted are usually the earliest ; al. 
appended denotes that the work has been more or less frequently reprinted ; 
+ marks the date of the author’s death; ¢ = circa, an approximation to it. | 


ALEXANDER (Joseph Addison), D.D., + 1860, Prof. Bibl. and Eccl. Hist. at Prince- 
ton: The Acts of the Apostles explained. 2 vols. 

8°, New York [and Lond.] 1857, al. 

ANGER (Rudolf), + 1866, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig: De temporum in Actis Apos- 

tolorum ratione. 8°, Lips. 1833, 

Arcurarıvs (Daniel), + 1596, Prof. Theol. at Marburg: Commentarius in Acta 

Apostolorum, cura Balthazaris Mentzeri editus. See also GERHARD 

(Johann). 8°, Francof. 1607, al. 


BARRINGTON (John Shute, Viscount), + 1734: Miscellanea sacra; or a new 
method of considering so much of the history of the Apostles as is 
contained in Scripture. 2 vols. Lond. 1725. 2d edition, edited by 
Bishop Barrington. 3 vols. 8°, Lond. 1770. 

BAUMGARTEN (Michael), lately Prof. Theol. at Rostock : Die Apostelgeschichte, 


oder der Entwicklungsgang der Kirche von Jerusalem bis Rom. 2 


Bände. 8°, Braunschw. 1852. 

[Translated by Rev. A. J. W. Morrison and Theod. Meyer. 3 vols. 

8°, Edin. 1854.] 
Baur (Ferdinand Christian), + 1860, Prof. Theol. at Tiibingen: Paulus der 

Apostel Jesu Christi. Sein Leben und Wirken, seine Briefe und seine 


Lehre. 8°, Stuttg. 1845, al. 
[Translated by Rev. Allan Menzies. 2 vols, 8°, Lond, 1875-6 

Bepa (Venerabilis), + 735, Monk at Jarrow: In Acta Apostolorum expositio 
[Opera]. 


BEELEN (Jean-Théodore), R, C. Prof. Or. Lang. at Louvain: Commentarius in 
Acta Apostolorum. .. . 2 voll. 4°, Lovanii, 1850. 


Vill EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. 


Bznson (George), D.D., + 1763, Minister in London: The History of the first 

planting of the Christian religion, taken from the Acts of the Apostles 

and their Epistles. 2 vols. 4°, Lond. 1735. 

2d edition, with large additions. 3 vols. 4°, Lond. 1756. 

Bıscoe (Richard), + 1748, Prebendary of St. Paul’s: The History of the Acts 
of the Holy Apostles, confirmed from other authors. . . . 2 vols. 

8°, Lond, 1742, al. 

BLoMFIELD (Charles James), D.D., + 1857, Bishop of London : Twelve Lectures 


on the Acts of the Apostles... . 8°, Lond. 1825. 
Brenz [Brentivs] (Johann), + 1570, Provost at Stuttgart: In Acta Apostolica 
homiliae centum viginti duae. 2°, Francof. 1561, al. 
BUGENHAGEN (Johann), ¢ 1558, Prof. Theol. at Wittenberg: Commentarius in 
Acta Apostolorum. 8°, Vitemb. 1524, al. 
BuLLInGER (Heinrich), ¢ 1575, Pastor at Zürich : In Acta Apostolorum commen- 
tariorum libri vi. 2°, Tiguri, 1533, al. 


Burton (Edward), D.D., + 1836, Prof. of Divinity at Oxford: An attempt to 
ascertain the chronology of the Acts of the Apostles and of St. Paul's 


Epistles. 8°, Oxf. 1830. 
CAJETANUS [Tommaso DA Vio], t 1534, Cardinal: Actus Apostolorum commen- 
tariis illustrati. 2°, Venet. 1530, al, 
Catixtus (Georg), t 1656, Prof. Theol. at Helmstadt : Expositio literalis in Acta 
Apostolorum. 4°, Brunsvigae, 1654. 


Cauvın [CHavuvin] (Jean), t 1564, Reformer : Commentarii in Acta Apostolorum. 
2°, Geney. 1560, al. 
[Translated by Christopher Featherstone. 4°, Lond. 1585, al.] 
CAPELLUS [Carpet] (Louis), t 1658, Prof. Theol. at Saumur : Historia apostolica 
illustrata ex Actis Apostolorum et Epistolis inter se collatis, collecta, 
accurate digesta, ... 4°, Salmur, 1683. 
Casstoporus (Magnus Aurelius), } 563. See Romans. 
Curysostomus (Joannes), ¢ 407, Archbishop of Constantinople : Homiliz ly, 
in Acta Apostolorum [Opera]. 
ConYBEARE (William John), M.A., Howson (John Saul), D.D. : Life and Epis- 
tles of St. Paul. 4°, Lond. 1852, al. 
Cook (Frederick Charles), M.A., Canon of Exeter: The Acts of the Apostles ; 
with a commentary, and practical and devotional suggestions. . . . 
12°, Lond. 1850. 
Crapvock (Samuel), B.D., ¢ 1706, Nonconformist minister: The Apostolical 
history . . . from Christ’s ascension to the destruction of Jerusalem 
by Titus ; with a narrative of the times and occasions upon which the 
Epistles were written : with an analytical paraphrase of them. 
2°, Lond. 1672. 
Creu (Johann), t 1633, Socinian Teacher at Racow: Commentarius in mag- 
nam partem Actorum Apostolorum [Opera]. 


Denton (William), M.A., Vicar of S. Bartholomew, Cripplegate : A commentary 
on the Acts of the Apostles. 2 vols. 8°, Lond. 1874-6. 
Dick (John), D.D., + 1834, Prof. Theol. to United Secession Church, Glas- 
gow: Lectures on the Acts of the Apostles. 2 vols. 
8°, Glas. 1805-6, al. 
Drv (Louis de), ¢ 1642, Prof. at Leyden: Animadversiones in Acta Aposto- 
lorum, ubi, collatis Syri, Arabis, Aethiopici, Vulgati, Erasmi et Bezae 
versionibus, difficiliora quaeque loca illustrantur .. . 
4°, Lugd. Bat, 1634. 
Dionysius CARTHUSIANUS [DENYS DE Rycxet], f 1471, Carthusian monk: In 
Acta Apostolorum commentaria, 2°, Paris, 1552. 
Du Ver. See Vern (Charles Marie de), 


Estey (Heneage), M.A., Vicar of Burneston: Annotations on the Four 
Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles ; compiled and abridged for the 
use of students. 3 vols. 8°, Lond. 1812 al. 


EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. ix 


Fervs [Wırn] (Johannes), t 1554, Cathedral Preacher at Mentz : Enarrationes 

breves et dilucidae in Acta Apostolorum. 2°, Colon. 1567. 

Fromonp [Froıpmont] (Libert), ¢ 1633, Prof. Sac. Scrip. at Louvain : Actus 
Apostolorum brevi et dilucido commentario illustrati. 

4°, Lovanii, 1654, al. 


GaGNEE (Jean de), ¢ 1549, Rector of the University of Paris: Clarissima et 
facillima in quatuor sacra J. C. Evangelia necnon in Actus Apostolicos 


scholia selecta. 29, Paris, 1552, al. 
GERHARD (Johann), ¢ 1637, Prof. Theol. at Jena: Annotationes in Acta Apos- 
tolorum. 4°, Jenae, 1669, al. 

Also : S. Lucae evangelistae Acta Apostolorum, triumvirali commentario 

... theologorum celeberrimorum Joannis Gerhardi, Danielis Arcu- 

larii et Jo. Canuti Lenaei illustrata. 4°, Hamburgi, 1713. 

GroAG (Paton James) D.D., Minister of Galashiels: Critical and exegetical 
commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. 2 vols. 8°, Edin. 1870. 

Gorran (Nicholas de), ¢ 1295, Prof at Paris: In Acta Apostolorum .. . Com- 
mentarii. 2°, Antverp. 1620. 
GRYNAEUS (Johann Jakob), + 1617, Prof. Theol, at Basle: Commentarius in 
Acta Apostolorum. - 49, Basil. 1573. 


GUALTHERUS [WALTHER] (Rudolph), ¢ 1586, Pastor at Zürich : In Acta Aposto- 
lorum per divum Lucam descripta homiliae elxxxv. 2°, Tiguri, 1577. 


Hackett (Horatio Balch), D.D., Prof. Bibl. Lit. in Newton Theol. Institution, 
U. S. : A commentary on the original text of the Acts of the Apostles. 
8°, Boston, U.S., 1852, al. 

Heryricus (Johann Heinrich), Superintendent at Burgdorf: Acta Apostolo- 
rum Graece perpetua anotatione illustrata. 2tomi. [Testamentum 
Novum... ulustravitJ. P. Koppe. Vol. iii. partes 1, 2.] 

8°, Gotting. 1809, al. 

Hemsen (Johann Tychsen). See Romans. 

Henrenius (Johannes), ¢ 1566, Prof. Theol. at Louvain: Enarrationes vetus- 
tissimorum theologorum in Acta quidem Apostolorum et in omnes 
Epistolas. 2°, Antverp. 1545. 

Hiwpesranp (Traugott W.), Pastor at Zwickau : Die Geschichte der Aposteln 
Jesu exegetisch-hermeneutisch in 2 besonderen Abschnitten bear- 
beitet. 8°, Leipiz. 1824. 

Hormetstrer (Johann), ¢ 1547, Augustinian Vicar-General in Germany : In duo- 
decim priora capita Actorum Apostolicorum commentaria. 

2°, Colon. 1567. 

Humpuary (William Gilson), M.A, Vicar of St. Martin’ s-in-the-Fields, London : 

A commentary on the Book of the Acts of the Apostles. 
8°, Lond. 1847, al. 


KISTEMAKER (Johann Hyazinth), +1834, R. C., Prof. Theol. at Münster: Ge- 
schichte der Aposteln mit Ammerkungen. 8, Münster, 1822. 
Kumoer [Kunvör] (Christian Gottlieb), t 1841, Prof. Theol. at Giessen : Com- 


mentarius in libros Novi Testamenti historicos. 4 voll. 
8°, Lips. 1807-18 al. 


Lance (Johann Peter), Prof. Theol. at Bonn : Das Apostolische Zeitalter. 2 
Bände. 8°, Braunschw. 1853. 
LECHLER (Gotthard Victor), Superintendent at Leipzig: Der Apostel Geschich- 
ten theologisch bearbeitet von G. V. Lechler, homiletisch von G. 


Gerok [Lange’s Bibelwerk. V.]. 8°, Bielefeld, 1860, al. 
[Translated by Rev. P. J. Gloag. 2 vols., Edin. 1866. And by Charles 
F. Schaeffer, D.D. 8°, New York, 1867. ] 


Das Apostolische und das nachapostolische Zeitalter mit Riicksicht aut 
Unterschied und Einheit in Lehre und Leben. 8°, Stuttg. 1851. 

Zweite durchaus umgearbeitete Auflage. 8°, Stuttg. 1 857. 
LEEUWEN (Gerbrand van), + 1721, Prof. Theol. at Amsterdam : De Handelingen 
der heyligen Apostelen, beschreeven door Lucas, uitgebreid en verk- 

laart. Amst. 1704. Also, in Latin. 2 voll. 8°, Amst, 1724. 


x EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. 


LEEEBUscH (Eduard) : Die Composition und Entstehung der Apostelgeschichte 


von neuem untersucht. 8°, Gotha, 1854. 
Lewin (Thomas), M. A., Barrister : The Life and Epistles of St. Paul. 8°, Lond. 
1851.—New edition. 2 vols. 4°, Lond. 1874. 


Licutroor (John), D.D., t 1675, Master of Catherine Hall, Cambridge : A com- 
mentary upon the Acts of the Apostles; chronical and critical, . . 
From the beginning of the book to the end of the twelfth chapter. . . . 

4”, Lond. 1645, al. 
[Also, Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae. See Marruew. ] 

Luweorce (Philipp van), t 1712, Arminian Prof. Theol. at Amsterdam : Com- 
mentarius in Acta Apostolorum, et in Epistolas ad Romanos et ad 
Ebraeos. 2°, Roterod. 1711, al. 

LINDHAMMER (Johann Ludwig), t 1771, General Superintendent in Hast Fries- 
land: Der... . Apostelgeschichte ausführliche Erklärung und An- 
wendung, darin der Text von Stuck zu Stuck ausgelegt und ,.. . mit 
. . . philologischen und critischen Noten erläutert wird. 

2°, Halae, 1725, al. 

Livermore (Abiel Abbot), Minister at Cincinnati: The Acts of the Apostles, 
with a commentary. 12°, Boston, U.S., 1844. 

LoBSTEIN (Johann Michael), + 1794, Prof. Theol. at Strassburg: Vollständiger 
Commentar über die Apostelgeschichte das Lukas. Th. I. 

8°, Strassb. 1792. 

Lormus (Jean), + 1634, Jesuit: In Acta Apostolorum commentaria .. . 

2°, Lugd. 1605, al. 


MartcorLm (John), t 1634, Minister at Perth: Commentarius et analysis in 
Apostolorum Acta. 4°, Mediob. 1615. 
Maskew (Thomas Ratsey), Head Master of Grammar School, Dorchester: An- 
notations on the Acts of the Apostles, original and selected . . . 2d 
edition .. . 12°, Camb. 1847. 
MENKEN (Gottfried), f 1831, Pastor at Bremen : Blicke in das Leben des Apos- 
tel Paulus und der ersten Christengemeinden, nach etlichen Kapiteln 


der Apostelgeschichte. 8°, Bremen, 1828. 
MexocHıo (Giovanni Stefano), ¢ 1655, Jesuit at Rome: Historia sacra de Acti- 
bus Apostolorum. 4", Rom. 1634. 


Morvs (Samuel Friedrich Nathanael), ¢ 1792, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig: Versio 
et explicatio Actorum Apostolicorum. Edidit, animadversiones recen- 


tiorum maxime interpretum svasque adjecit G. J. Dindorf. 2 voll. 
8°, Lips. 1794. 


NEANDER (Johann August Wilhelm), t 1850, Prof. Theol. at Berlin : Geschichte 
der Pflanzung und Leitung der christlichen Kirche durch die Apostel. 


2 Bände. 89, Hamb. 1832, al. 
[Translated by J. E. Ryland. 8°, Lond. 1851.] 
NovArıxo (Luigi), ¢ 1650, Theatine monk: Actus Apostolorum expansi et notis 
monitisque sacris illustrati. 2°, Lugd. 1645. 


OxrcUMENtTts, c. 980, Bishop of Trieca. See Romans. 
OERTEL (J. O.), Pastor at Gr. Storkwitz : Paulus in der Apostelgeschichte. . . . 
8°, Halle, a. S., 1868. 


Patny (William), D.D., ¢ 1805, Archdeacon of Carlisle : Horae Paulinae ; or, the 
truth of the Scripture history of St. Paul evinced by a comparison of 
the Epistles which bear his name with the Acts of the Apostles, and 
with one another. 


See TATE (James). 8°, Lond. 1790, al. 
Parrizi (Francesco Xavier), Prof. Theol. at Rome: In Actus Apostolorum com- 
mentarium. 4°, Rom. 1867. 


Pearce (Zachary), D.D., t 1774, Bishop of Rochester. See MATTHEW. 
Pearson (John), D.D., t 1686, Bishop of Chester: Lectiones in Acta Aposto- 
lorum, 1672 ; Annales Paulini [Opera posthuma]. 4°, Lond. 1688, al. 

[Edited in English, with a few notes, by J. R. Crowfoot, B.D. 
12°, Camb. 1851.] 


EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. xl 


Perri [PEETERS] (Barthelemi), ¢ 1630, Prof. Theol. at Douay : Commentarius 
in Acta Apostolorum. 4°, Duaci, 1622. 
PrLevier (Johannes), + c. 1760, Pastor at Middelburg: De Handelingen der 
heylige Apostelen, beschreeven door Lukas, ontleedt, verklaardt en 
tot het oogmerk toegepast. 4°, Utrecht, 1725, al. 
PricaEus [Price] (John), LL.D., + 1676, Prof. of Greek at Pisa: Acta Apos- 
tolorum ex sacra pagina, sanctis patribus Graecisque ac Latinis serip- 
toribus illustrata. 8°, Paris, 1647, al. 
Pyue (Thomas), D.D., + 1756, Vicar of Lynn: A paraphrase, with some notes, 
on the Acts of the Apostles, and on all the Epistles of the New Testa- 
ment. 8°, Lond. 1725, al. 


Rırenm (Johann Karl): Dissertatio critico-theologica de fontibus Actorum 

Apostolorum. 8°, Traj. ad Rhen. 1821. 

Rırscau (Albrecht), Prof. Theol. at Göttingen : Die Entstehung der altkatho- 

lischen Kirche. 8°, Bonn, 1850—2te durchgängig neu ausgearbeitete 

Ausgabe. 8°, Bonn, 1857. 

Rosınson (Hastings), D.D., + 1866, Canon of Rochester : The Acts of the Apos- 
tles ; with notes, original and selected, for the use of students. 

8°, Lond. 1830, 

Also, in Latin. 8°, Cantab. 1824. 


SALMERON (Alphonso), + 1585, Jesuit : In Acta Apostolorum [Opera, xii.]. 
SANCHEZ [Sancrius] (Gaspar), + 1628, Jesuit, Prof. Sac. Scrip. at Alcala : Com- 


mentarii in Actus Apostolorum .. . 4°, Lugd. 1616, al. 
SCHAFF (Philip), D.D., Prof. of Church Hist. at New York: History of the 
Apostolic church. 8°, New York, 1853. 2 vols. 8°, Edin. 1854. 


[Previously issued in German at Mercersburg, 1851.] 
SCHNECKENBURGER (Matthias), + 1848, Prof. Theol. at Berne : Ueber den Zweck 

der Apostelgeschichte. 8°, Bern, 1841. 
SCHRADER (Karl), Pastor at Hörste near Bielefeld: Der Apostel Paulus. 5 

Theile. [Theil V. Uebersetzung und Erklärung . .... der Apostelge- 


schichte. ] 8°, Leipz. 1830-36. 
SCHWEGLER (Albert), ¢ 1857, Prof. Rom. Lit. at Tübingen : Das nachaposto- 
lisches Zeitalter. 8°, Tübing. 1847. 
SELNECCER (Nicolaus), + 1592, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig: Commentarius in Acta 
Apostolorum. 8°, Jenae 1567, al. 
STAPLETON (Thomas), ¢ 1598, Prof. at Louvain: Antidota apostolica contra 
nostri temporis haereses, in Acta Apostolorum. . . 2 voll. 1595. 
STIER (Rudolf Ewald), + 1862, Superintendent in Hisleben: Die Reden der 
Aposteln. 2 Bände. 8°, Leipz. 1829. 
[Translated by G. H. Venables. 2 vols. 8°, Edin, 1869.] 
STRESO (Caspar), ¢ 1664, Pastor at the Hague: Commentarius praeticus in 
Actorum Apostolicorum ... capita. 2voll. 4°, Amstel. 1658-9, al. 
SYLVEIRA (Juan de), t 1687, Carmelite monk : Commentarius in Acta Aposto- 
lorum. 2°, Lugd. 1678. 


Tare (James), M.A., Canon of St. Paul’s: The Horae Paulinae of William 
Paley, D.D., carried out and illustrated in a continuous history of 
the apostolic labours and writings of St. Paul, on the basis of the 
NCEE ce. 8°, Lond. 1840. 

THEOPHRYLAcTus, c. 1070, Archbishop of Acris in Bulgaria: Commentarius in 
Acta Apostolorum [Opera]. 

Terersc# (Heinrich Wilhelm Josias), Prof. Theol. at Marburg : Die Kirche im 


apostolischen Zeitalter. 8°, Frankf. 1852, al. 
[Translated by Carlyle. 8°, Lond. 1852.] 
Treıss (Johann Otto), ¢ 1810, Prof. Theol. at Kiel: Lukas Apostelgeschichte 
neu übersetzt, mit Anmerkungen, 8°, Gera, 1800. 
Tr (Ch. J.), Superintendent at Leer in East Friesland: Paulus nach der 
Avostelgeschichte. Historischer Werth dieser Berichte . . . 


8°, Leiden, 1866. 
TROLLOPE (William) : A commentary on the Acts of the Apostles .. . 
12°, Camb. 1847. 


xil EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. 


VALCKENAER (Ludwig Kaspar), ¢ 1785, Prof. in Leyden : Selecta e scholis L. C. 
Valckenarii in libros quosdam N. T., editore Eb. Wassenbergh. 2 


partes. 8°, Amst. 1815-17. 
Vert (Charles Marie de), t e. 1701, R. C. convert, latterly Baptist : Explicatio 
literalis Actorum Apostolicorum. 8°, Lond. 1684. 


[Translated by the author into English, 1685,] 


WarcH (Johann Ernst Immanuel), 1 1778, Prof. Theol. at Jena: Disserta- 
tiones in Acta Apostolorum. 3 voll. 4°, Jenae, 1756-61. 

WASSENBERGH (Everaard van). See VALCKENAER (Ludwig Kaspar). 

Wieseter (Karl), Prof. Theol. at Göttingen : Chronologie des apostolischen 
Zeitalters. 8°, Götting. 1848. 

Wouzocen (Johann Ludwig von), t 1661, Socinian: Commentarius in Acta 
Apostolorum [Opera]. 


ZELLER (Eduard), Prof. Philos. at Berlin: Die Apostelgeschichte nach ihrem 
Inhalt und Ursprung kritisch untersucht. 8°, Stuttg. 1854. 
[Translated by Rev. Joseph Dare. 8°, Lond. 1875. ] 


ERRATA. 


On pages 33, 35, and 36, for the letters (D), (=), and (F), indicating the 
notes appended to the chapter, read (#), (1), and (s) respectively. 





PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 


Tur Book of Acts is the indispensable and invaluable link of connec- 
tion between the Gospels and the Epistles. It is the proper sequel and 
natural result of the one, and forms a fit preface and a suitable setting 
for the other. It is difficult to overestimate our indebtedness to this 
book, historically, theologically, and ecclesiastically. 

As an epitome of the labours of thirty eventful years, it is remarkable 
for the fulness and variety of the information it contains ; and is no less 
remarkable for the omission of much which it would be of great interest 
for us to know. Even in the life of Paul, of whose labors it specially 
treats, there are considerable periods of which nothing is recorded, or 
the events of which are dismissed with a sentence. As many volumes 
would have been required to give a full narrative in detail, this brief 
treatise is written on the principle of selection ; and the selection of 
material is alike judicious and fair. The impartiality and truthfulness 
of the writer is amply evinced by the honest record which he makes of 
the imperfections in the church, and of the differences which arose be- 
tween some of its acknowledged leaders. 

The united testimony of the early church to the authenticity of this 
book, and to its authorship—as the work of Luke, the writer of the 
third Gospel—is confirmed by internal evidence, deduced from the 
identity of style, the continuity of the narrative, the reference of the 
writer to a previous treatise addressed to the same individual, and the 
correspondence of plan. No less than fifty words, not found elsewhere 
in the N. T., are common to both books. Dr. Schaff, in the revised 
edition of his History of the Christian Church, vol I., page 739, 
writes : ‘‘ No history of thirty years has ever been written so truthful, 
so impartial, so important, so interesting, so healthy in tone and so 
hopeful in spirit, so aggressive yet so genial, so cheering and inspiring, 
so replete with lessons of wisdom and encouragement for work in 


xvi PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 


spreading the gospel of truth and peace, and yet withal so simple and 
modest, as the Acts of the Apostles. It is the best as well as the first 
manual of church history.’’ 

Severe critical assaults have been directed against the Book of Acts. 
The writer has been accused of systematic perversion of facts, and of 
deliberate addition of events and incidents which had no foundation in 
truth, in order to serve his special purpose of preparing an irenicum be- 
tween the Petrine or Jewish Christians, and the Pauline or Gentile 
party, who held more liberal and enlarged views of the gospel. Now 
there is no evidence whatever in the book of any such design ; and its 
credibility and perfect reliability are clearly demonstrable from the har- 
mony between the records it contains and authentic secular history ; 
and from the numerous and striking coincidences between the Acts and 
the Epistles. The argument constructed by Paley on this subject, in 
his Horae Paulinae, is unanswerable. 

Dr. Meyer was born in Gotha, January 10th, 1800. He was baptized 
on the 12th day of the same month, and was named Henry August 
Wilhelm. The family name was formerly written Majer, or Mayer. 
As a child, he was constitutionally feeble, but by constant well-regulated 
exercise he acquired the power of great physical and mental endurance. 
At the gymnasium of Gotha he early laid the foundation of his high 
classical culture. He had a decided taste for the classica] languages and 
literature, and made distinguished proficiency in them. In 1818 he 
entered the University of Jena to study theology. Simple and social 
were the years of his student life. On leaving the university he became 
a tutor in an institution under the care of Pastor Oppermann, whose 
daughter he married in 1823, with whom he lived in great domestic 
enjoyment for forty years. In 1823 he was installed as pastor in 
Osthausen, and in 1830 called to the more prominent position of pastor 
at Harste, near Göttingen. 

In 1829 he issued the first part of the great work of his life, which 
was followed in 1832 by another instalment. His original plan of the 
work expanded as he proceeded, and he did not live to see it completed. 
His views, during forty years of most assiduous study of the Scriptures, 
changed considerably ; and such changes were frankly expressed in »uc- 
cessive editions, and in fresh productions on other portions of the 
Word. The principle of grammatico-historical interpretation, however, 
which he at first adopted was rigidly adhered to throughout his life. It 
was his custom carefully to revise, correct, and polish each work before 
making it ready for the press. 

In 1837 he removed to Hoga, and in 1844 was called to Hannover as 
Consistorialrath, Superintendent, and Chief Pastor of the Neustädter St. 


PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. xvii 


Johannis Kirche. In 1845 the faculty at Göttingen conferred on him 
the degree of Doctor of Theology. In 1846 he suffered from a severe 
illness, which so injured his health that he never afterward regained his 
former strength. In consequence of this his labours were somewhat 
modified and diminished, though still abundant, and he adopted very 
striet rules of abstinence and exereise, which he maintained until the 
close of his life. He called water and walking his two great physicians. 
He was accustomed to rise early, generally at four o’clock. 

In 1864 his wife died, and after that bereavement he lived in the 
family of his son, and was very greatly cheered by the gleesome glad- 
ness and constant attendance of his granddaughters, who accompanied 
him in his daily walks, in all kinds of weather. In 1865 he retired 
from official life and devoted his time to his studies and to the society 
of friends. He was a man of peace, and all party-political proceedings 
and irritating religious controversies were exceedingly offensive to him. 
His views of truth became clearer and more positive with his advancing 
years and his maturer studies. 

His last illness was brief, nor were his sufferings great. The last 
Sunday of his life, June 15th, was spent in his usual way, with great 
personal enjoyment to himself and others. About the middle of that 
night he was suddenly seized with great pain, from which he obtained 
some relief. On the 19th, two days before his decease, he said : 
** Willingly would I still remain with you ; but willingly am I also ready 
to depart, if God calls me.’’ On the evening of June 21st, 1873, he 
quietly fell asleep. His remains were laid in the Neustädter church- 
yard, and on the cross at his tomb is engraved this text : Romans 
xiv. 8. Dr. Gloag, the able translator of a part of Meyer’s Commen- 
taries, writes about six months after his death : ‘‘ It is hardly to the 
credit of our theologians, that the greatest modern exegete should have 
recently passed away, with such slight notice, at least in our English 
periodicals, of his literary works and vast erudition.”’ 

Among Commentaries on the Acts the work of Meyer occupies a 
deservedly pre-eminent place. In extent of erudition and accuracy of 
scholarship it stands unsurpassed. No name is entitled to take pre- 
cedence of that of Meyer as a critical exegete ; and it would be difficult 
to find one that equals him in the happy combination of superior learn- 
ing with keen penetration, analytical power, and clear, terse, vigorous 
expression. He has admirable exegetical tact and acumen, and presents 
his results with candour and perspicuity. So impartial and candid is he, 
that he never allows his own peculiar views to colour or distort his inter- 
pretations of the language of Scripture. Any Biblical student will find 
exquisite delight in tracing his clear and cogent reasonings to the gen- 


xvill PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 


erally correct decision reached by his calm judicial mind and deep spir- 
itual instinct. He has no sympathy with the school of rationalistie 
interpreters, and firmly believes in the supernatural—the divine inter- 
position in human affairs. The Bible is to him the Word of God ; and 
redemption through the incarnation and death of the Son of God a 
glorious reality. The peculiarity of his views concerning the person of 
Christ do not seem to affect his full appreciation of the Saviour’s work. 
Indeed his doctrine is decidedly evangelical, and he readily receives 
whatever is revealed, provided he has satisfactory evidence of the 
authenticity of the record. His honesty and fearlessness are so great 
that he does not even seek to harmonize apparent discrepancies ; while 
his views of inspiration are such as to permit him to regard some of 
them as irreconcilable and contradictory. Some of his statements, 
therefore, must be carefully scrutinized and received with caution, but 
no theologian, however learned or eminent, can consult his excellent 
Commentaries without deriving great profit and grateful satisfaction. 

Alford, referring to the Commentaries and critical notes of Meyer, says : 
‘¢ Though often differing widely from him, I cannot help regarding his 
Commentaries on the two Epistles to the Corinthians as the most mas- 
terly and complete that I have hitherto seen on any portion of Seript- 
ure.’? Dr. Howard Crosby, whose high attainments as a scholar render 
him an authority equal to the highest in such matters, characterizes 
Meyer’s Commentaries as ‘‘ unsurpassed,’’ and states ‘‘ his work is a 
kriua 25 dei.’’ He states : ‘‘ Meyer’s faults are his purism, which 
presses a classical exactness on Hellenistic Greek, and a low view of 
inspiration, which permits him to see irreconcilable difficulties’’ in the 
sacred narratives; but further adds: ‘‘In the Epistles Meyer is 
specially sound and foreible.”” Dr. T. W. Chambers, another thor- 
oughly qualified judge, writes: ‘‘ Meyer has been justly called the 
prince of exegetes ; being at once acute and learned.’? Dr. Gloag 
regards him as ‘‘ the greatest modern exegete’’ and speaks of his Com- 
mentaries as ‘* unrivalled.”’ 

Dr. Dickson, Prof. of Divinity in the University of Glasgow, Editor 
of Meyer’s Commentaries, as published by T. & T. Clarke, Edinburgh, 
characterizes the production of Meyer as ‘‘ an epoch-making work of 
exegesis,”’ and adds: ‘‘ I have thought it right, so far as the English 
reader is concerned, to present, according to my promise, the work of 
Meyer without addition or subtraction in its latest and presumably best 
form as it left his hand.’’ This American edition is an exact reprint of 
the Scottish one. 

Meyer’s Commentary on Acts is intrinsically worthy of republication 
at any time, but the immediate occasion of its hasty reproduction at this 


PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION, XIX 


time is to be found in the fact that the attention of Sunday-schools, and 
of Christian people generally, will be specially directed to the Book of 
Acts, during the first six months of the present year, and both pastors 
and teachers will find in Meyer an invaluable aid. 

The work of the American editor, which, though far too hurried, has 
been one of genuine delight, consists : Fürst, in transferring from the 
page to foot-notes most of the exceedingly numerous references to 
authorities. These notes are indicated by small numerals, on each page. 
It is thought that thus the book will be better suited for the general 
reader, while the scholarly student can still avail himself of all the 
references he may desire. Second, in appending a number of supple- 
mentary notes to each chapter. These notes have been written and select- 
ed for the purpose of expanding and confirming, and, in some in- 
stances, of modifying and correcting the statements of the author. The 
notes have been designedly made more copious in the hope of rendering 
the work more serviceable to Sunday-school teachers and to the general 
reader. 

A list of the books used, referred to, or quoted in preparing the sup- 
plementary notes is furnished. They are all in the English language, 
most of them inexpensive, many of them handy volumes and easily pro- 
curable. We would specially commend to Biblical students the well- 
known and excellent work of Prof. Hackett, which Dr. Gloag, in the 
preface to his own work on the Acts, modestly styles ‘‘ the best work 
on the subject in the English Janguage.’’? The Rev. S. Cox, editor of 
the Zxpositor, London, says of the Commentaries of Hackett and 
Gloag, they ‘‘are probably the best in our language, each of them 
marked by sound scholarship, good common-sense, and a candid and 
devout spirit. If a choice must be made, give Gloag the preference.”’ 
We most heartily concur in the last sentence, and unhesitatingly say of 
Gloag what Gloag himself has said of Hackett, it is the best book on the 
Acts in the English language. The works of Abbott, Alexander, 
Plumptre, Jacobus ; and Howson and Spence, edited by Schaff, are suit- ' 
able for popular reading and Sunday-school work. 

It is hoped that the Table of Contents, and the Index to the Supple- 
mentary Notes, to which reference is made in the text by small capitals 
in brackets, will be of service to the reader, and facilitate the study of 
the volume. The attentive, earnest perusal of Meyer’s work cannot fail 
not merely to increase the reader’s knowledge of the Scriptures, but 
also to awaken fresh interest in the thorough study of the Sacred Book. 


W. Ormiston. 
New York, January 6, 1882. 





LIST OF THE BOOKS USED, REFERRED TO, OR QUOTED IN 
THE NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


Asporr.— The Acts of the Apostles. By Rev. Lyman Abbott. 
Barnes & Co., N. Y., 1876. 
ALEXANDER. — The Acts of the Apostles. By Joseph Addison Alexander. In 


2 vols. Scribner, N. Y., 1857. 
Atrorp.—The Greek Testament: A critical and exegetical commentary. By 
Henry Alford, B.D. In 3 vols. Rivingtons, London, 1852. 
ApocrypHa.—Apocryphal Gospels, Acts and Revelations. Vol. 16 of the Ante- 
Nicene Christian Library. T. & T. Clark, Edin., 1870. 
Arnot.—The Church in the House: A series of lessons on the Acts of the 
Apostles. By William Arnot. Carter & Bros., N. Y., 1873. 


Barnes.—Notes, Explanatory and Practical, on the Acts of the Apostles. De- 
signed for Bible-classes and Sunday-schools. By Albert Barnes, 


10th ed. Harper & Brothers, N. Y., 1844. 
Also, Scenes and Incidents in the Life of the Apostle Paul. By Albert 
Barnes. Hamilton, Adams & Co., London, 1869. 


BENGEL.—Gnomon of the New Testament. By John Albert Bengel. Vol. 2d. 
Translated by Rev. Andrew Fausset. 4th ed. 
T. T. Clark, Edin., 1860. 
BLEER.—An Introduction to the New Testament. By Frederick Bleek. Trans- 
lated from the German of the 2d edition, by Rev. William Urwick, 
M.A. T. & T. Clark, Edin., 1869. 
BLoomFIELd.— The Greek New Testament, with English Notes. Critical, Philo- 
logical, and Exegetical. By Rev. S. T. Bloomfield, D.D., F.S.A. Ist 
Am. ed. from the 2d London. In 2 vols. 
Perkins & Marvin, Boston, 1837. 
Burter.—St. Paul in Rome : Lectures delivered in the Legation of the United 
States of America, in Rome. By Rev. C. M. Butler, D.D. + 
. J. B. Lippincott & Co., Phila., 1865. 
Catvry.—Commentary upon the Acts of the Apostles. By John Calvin. Ed- 
ited from the original English translation of Christopher Fetherstone, 
By Henry Beveridge, Esq. 2 vols. : Edin., 1842 
Campzett, — The Four Gospels, Translated from the Greek, with Preliminary 
Dissertations, and Notes, Critical and Explanatory. By George Camp- 
bell, D.D., F.R.S., Principal of Mareschal College, Aberdeen. 3d ed. 
Aberdeen, 1814. 
CoNYBEARE.— The Life and Epistles of St. Paul. By Rev. W. J. Conybeare, 
M.A., and Rev. J. S. Howson, M.A. In 2 vols. 6th ed. 2 
Scribner, N. Y., 1856. 


Coox.— The Acts of the Apostles. Introduction. By Canon Cook. - 
Charles Seribner’s Sons, N. Y. 


xxil LIST OF THE BOOKS USED BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


Dextox.— A commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, 2 vols. By William 
Denton, M.A. Lond., 1874. 
Dicx.—Lectures on the Acts of the Apostles. By John Dick, D.D. First 
American (from the 2d Glasgow) edition. Robert Carter, N. Y., 1844. 
DopDpkipge. — The Works of the Rev. P. Doddridge, D.D. Vols. VIII. and IX. : 
A Paraphrase on the Acts of the Apostles. Leeds, 1805. 


EapıE.— Paul the Preacher. By John Eadie, D.D., LL.D., Prof. of Bib. Lit. to 
the United Presbyterian Church (Scotland). 
Robert Carter & Bros., N. Y., 1859, 


Farrar.—The Life of Christ, in 2 vols., 1874; The Life and Work of St. Paul, 
in 2 vols., 1879; The Early Days of Christianity, in 1 vol., 1882. By 
F. W. Farrar, D.D., F.R.S., Canon of Westminster, etc. 

E. P. Dutton & Co., N. Y. 
FisHrer.—The Beginnings of Christianity. By George P. Fisher, D.D., Prof. of 
Ecel. Hist. in Yale College. Charles Scribner's Sons, N. Y. 

FırcH.— James the Lord’s Brother. By Rev. Chauncy W. Fitch, D.D. 
Dana, N. Y., 1858. 


Gioac.—A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. 

By Paton J. Gloag, D.D. T. & T. Clark, Edin., 1870. 

Goprr.—A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke. By F. Godet, 8.T.P., 

Neuchatel. Translated by E. W. Shalders and M. D. Cusin ; with 
Preface and Notes by John Hall, D.D. 2d edition. 

I. K. Funk & Co., N. Y., 1881. 

(GRADUATE, A.) Paul of Tarsus : An Inquiry into the Times and the Gospel of 

the Apostle of the Gentiles. By a Graduate. 
Roberts Bros., Boston, 1872. 


Hacxerr.—A Commentary on the Original Text of the Acts of the Apostles. 
By Horatio B. Hackett, D.D., Prof. of Bib. Lit. in Newton Theol. 

Inst. A new edition, revised and greatly enlarged. 
Gould & Lincoln, Boston, 1859. 
Howson.—The Acts of the Apostles. By J. S. Howson, D.D., and H. M. Spence, 
M.A. Edited by Philip Schaff, D.D, LL.D., Prof. of Sac. Lit. in the 

Union Theol. Sem., New York. 

Charles Scribner’s Sons, N. Y., 1882. 


Jacopson.—The Holy Bible: With an Explanatory and Critical Commentary, 
and a Revision of the Translation. By Bishops and other clergy of the 
Anglican Church. Edited by Canon Cook. The Acts. By William 
Jacobson, D.D., Bishop of Chester. Charles Scribner’s Sons, N. Y. 

Jacogus.— Notes, Critical and Explanatory, on the Acts of the Apostles. By 
Melancthon W. Jacobus, Prot. of Bib. Lit. 

Robert Carter & Bros., N. Y., 1860. 

JosEepHUS.—The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston, 
A.M. E. Morgan & Co., Cincinnati, 1851. 


Knox.—A Year with St. Paul. By Charles E. Knox. 
Anson D. F. Randolph & Co., N. Y. 


Lange. —A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Acts of the Apostles, an 

Exegetical and Doctrinal Commentary. By Gotthard Victor Lechler, 

D.D. Translated by Charles F. Schaeffer, D.D. Edited by Dr. Schaff. 

Charles Scribner & Co., N. Y., 1869. 

LeAtues.— The Witness of St. Paul to Christ ; with an Appendix on the Credi- 

bility of the Acts. By Rev. Stanley Leathes, M.A. 

Rivingtons, Lond., 1869. 

Lumpy.—The Cambridge Bible for Schools: The Acts of the Apostles, chaps. 
ii.-xiv., with Introduction and Notes. By J. Rawson Lumby, D.D. 

Cambridge, 1879. 


LIST OF THE BOOKS USED BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. Xxxli 


McCuntock.—Cyclopedia of Bib. Theol. and Eccl. Lit. Prepared by Rev. 
John McClintock, D.D., and James Strong, S.T.D. 

Harper & Bros., N. Y., 1880. 

MacDurr.—The Footsteps of St. Peter and the Footsteps of St. Paul. By J. R. 

MacDuff, D.D. Robert Carter & Bros., N. Y., 1877, 1856. 

Micaaeris. —Introduction to the New Testament. By John David Michaelis, 

Translated by Herbert Marsh, D.D., F.R.A.S., Bishop of Peterborough. 

F.C. & J, Rivington, Lond., 1823. 

Morrison.—The Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of Paul. Arranged in 
the form of a continuous history. By Thomas Morrison, M.A. 

T. Nelson & Sons, Edin., 1867. 


NEANDER. —General History of the Christian Religion and Church. From the 
German of Dr. Augustus Neander, Translated from the 2d and im- 
proved edition. By Joseph Torrey. Vol. II. T. & T. Clark, Edin., 1851. 


Orsuausen.—Biblical Commentary on the New Testament. By Dr. Herman 
Olshausen. Translated for Clark's For. and Theol. Lib. 1st Am. ed. 

revised after 4th Ger. ed. by A. C. Kendrick, D.D. 
Sheldon, Blakeman & Co., N. Y., 1858. 


Puumprre.—The Acts of the Apostles. With Commentary by E. H. Plumptre, 
D.D. 2d ed. Cassell & Co, N, Y. 

Patry.—The Works of William Paley, D.D., complete in one volume. 
J. J. Woodward, Phila. 


Renan.—The Apostles (1866), and St. Paul (1869), By Ernest Renan. Transla- 
ted from the original French. Carlton, N. Y., 1866, 1869. 


Scuarr.—History of the Christian Church. By Philip Schaff. A new edition 
thoroughly revised and enlarged. Vol. I. : Apostolie Christianity. 

x Charles Scribner’s Sons, N. Y., 1882. 

Smiru.—A Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by William Smith, LL.D. In 


3 vols. Little, Brown & Co., Boston, 1860. 
Strer.—Clark’s For. Theol. Lib. Fourth series. Vol. 22: Stier’s Words of 
the Apostles. T. T. Clark, Edin., 1869. 


Sumyer.—A Practical Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles in the Form of 
Lectures. By John Bird Sumner, D.D., Bishop of Chester, 
I. Hatchard & Son, Lond., 1838. 


Taytor.—Peter the Apostle, and Paul the Missionary. By Rev. William M. 


Taylor, D D. Harper & Bros., N. Y., 1882. 
Tuomas.—A Homiletic Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. By David 
Thomas, D.D. Richard D. Dickinson, Lond., 1870. 


Vaueuan.—The Church of the First Days: Lectures on the Acts of the Apos- 
tles. By C.J. Vaughan. 2d ed. Macmillan & Co., Lond., 1866. 


Wescorr.— The Gospel of the Resurrection. By Brooke Foss Wescott, B.D. 2d 
ed. Macmillan & Co., Lond., 1867. 





TABLE OF CONTENTS. 


























CHAPTER. VERSE, PAGE. TOPICS. 
Introd. Ir il Authorship and genuineness of the Book. 
EL I. 7 Aim and sources of the Book. 
fs Tite 11 Time and place of composition. 
g IV. 13 Chronological summary of the Acts. 
iB 1-3 23 Reference to Luke’s Gospel. 
ce 4-7 27 Last words of Jesus. 
x 8-11 29 The ascension. 
ae 12-14 3 Return to Jerusalem. 
a 15-22 33 Address of Peter. 
= 23-26 35 Election of Matthias. ; 
IT 122 41 Descent of the Holy Spirit. 
i, 3, 4 45 Gift of tongues. 
Re 5-13 53 Effects of the miracle. 
se 14-36 57 Peter’s discourse. 
ee 37-40 67 Results of the discourse. 
cs 41-43 69 The first converts. 
re 44-47 71 Community of goods ; growth. 
ENTE 1-11 77 Healing of a lame man. 
es 12-26 79 Peter’s discourse. 
INE 1-7 91 Arrest of Peter and John. 
% 8-12 93 Their defence. 
es 13-22 95 Their release. 
2 23-31 97 A prayer-meeting. 
= 32-37 99 State of the church. 
WG 1-11 105 Sin and punishment of Ananias. 
a 12-16 109 Miraculous power of the apostles. 
RS 17-25 111 Their arrest and deliverance. 
ue 26-33 113 Trial before the Sanhedrim. 
Oe 34-42 115 Counsel] of Gamaliel. 
IL, 1-7 125 Appointment of the seven. 
2 8-15 129 — | Stephen’s arrest and trial. — 
VI. 1-53 135. | Stephen’s defence. 
rg 1-16 141 History of the patriarchs. 
s§ 17-46 147 Jews under the law. 
as 47-53 155 The temple and the prophets. 
os 54-60 157 The martyrdom of Stephen. 
VEE, 1-4 165 General persecution. 
es 5-13 167 Philip preaching in Samaria. 
i 14-17 169 Simon is baptized. 
ue 18-24 ial Simon Magus. 
es 26-40 173 The Ethiopian eunuch. 
IX. 1-9 181 Saul’s conversion. 
sé 10-18 189 Ananias baptizes Saul. 
ey 19-22 191 Preaching in Damascus. 
se 23-25 191 Flight from Damascus. 


ES 26-31 193 Visit to Jerusalem and Tarsus. 








XXV1 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
































CHAPTER, VERSE. PAGE. TOPICS. 
IX. 32-43 195 Peter eures /Eneas and raises Dorcas. 
xe 1-8 203 The vision of Cornelius. 
Ot 9-16 205 The vision of Peter. 
& 17-22 207 Messenger from Cornelius. 
at 23-33 209 Peter visits Cornelius. 
sc 34-43 211 Peter’s address. 
© 44-48 215 Baptism of Cornelius. 
DIE 1-18 221 Peter’s defence of his conduct. 
““ 19-26 223 The gospel in Antioch. 
ae 27-30 225 Antioch sends aid to Jerusalem. 
XI. 1 229 Martyrdom of James. 
oe 8-7 231 Imprisonment of Peter. 
of 8-19 233 Peter's wonderful deliverance. 
& 20-23 237 Death cf Herod Agrippa. 
XII. 1-3 245 First ordained missionaries. 
u 4-12 247 Success in Cyprus. 
at 13-15 251 Paphos to Perga. 
a 16-41 253 Paul’s sermon at Antioch. 
ab 42-52 265 Labors in and expulsion from Antioch. 
XIV. 1-7 271 Events at Iconium. 
u 8-14 273 The apostles taken for gods. 
uc 15-21 275 Paul remonstrates and is stoned. 
ae 22-28 276 Return to Syrian Antioch. 
XV. 1-5 283 Delegates sent to Jerusalem. 
ae 6-13 285 Peter’s address at the council. 
a 14-21 287 Address of James. 
ee 22-35 295 Decision and letter of council. 
gi 36-41 299 Separation of Paul and Barnabas. 
XVI. 1-5 305 Silas accompanies Paul. 
SE 6-10 309 Call from Macedonia. 
si 11-15 311 Lydia baptized at Philippi. 
X 16-18 313 A demoniac woman healed. 
Ge 19225 315 Imprisonment of Paul and Silas. 
x 26-35 317 Conversion of the jailer. 
st 36-40 319 Release from prison. 
XVII. 1-9 325 Paul at Thessalonica. 
% 10-15 327 Paul at Beroea. 
ae 16-21 329 Paul at Athens. 
= 22-34 337 Paul’s address on Mar’s hill, 
XVIII. 1-7 347 Paul in Corinth. 
as 8-11 sol Encouraged by a vision. 
ss 12-18 359 Aquila and Priscilla. 
sie 19-23 355 Paul returns to Antioch. 
a 24-28 307 Apollos. 
XIX. 1-7 365 Disciples of John. 
“x 8-12 369 Paul in Ephesus. 
ce 13-20 371 Sons of Sceva. 
ee 21-34 375 Tumult raised by Demetrius. 
ge 35-41 377 Tumult quelled by the town clerk. 
XX. 1-3 383 Paul in Greece. 
ee 4-6 385 Plot against Paul. 
> 7-12 387 Services at Troas. 
ac 13-38 389 Paul at Miletus. 
XXI. 1-16 399 Paul’s journey to Jerusalem. 
gs 17-26 405 His address and vow. 
oc 27-40 411 Arrest of Paul. 


XXII. 1-21 417 Paul’s speech to the mob. 








TABLE OF CONTENTS. xxvil 





CHAPTER. VERSE. PAGE, TOPICS, 














XXI. 1-10 427 Paul before the Jewish council. 

SC 11-22 431 Conspiracy against Paul’s life. 
23-30 433 Resened by Lysias and sent to Cesarzea. 
31-35 435 Paul introduced to Felix. 

1-9 441 Paul accused by Tertullus. 
10-21 443 Paul’s defence. 
22-23 447 His confinement. 
24-27 449 Address before Felix and Drusilla. 
1-12 455 Paul’s trial and appeal. 
13-22 457 Festus and Agrippa. 
23-27 459 Paul and Agrippa, 
1-23 463 Paul’s defence of the gospel. 
24-26 469 His reply to Festus. 
27-32 471 Appeal to Agrippa. 
1-8 477 Voyage to Italy. 
9-20 483 A storm at sea. 
21-26 485 Paul’s address on board. 
27-37 487 Fears and hopes. 
38-41 489 Shipwreck. 
42-44 491 All on board saved. 
1-6 497 Paul at Malta; murderer and god. 
8-10 499 He cures diseases. 
11-15 501 Voyage to Rome. 
16-22 503 Conference with chief men of the Jews. 
23-29 505 Second interview with the Jews. 
30-31 507 Paul’s captivity. 


oe 





XXII. 22-30 491 Plea of Roman citizenship. 








INDEX TO THE NOTES BY THE AMERICAN 
EDITOR. 
































LETTER. CHAPTER, VERSE. PAGE. NOTES. 
A Introd. 6 | Authorship. 
B es 6 Authenticity, 
c ee 11 Design, 
D x 22 | Chronology. 
E 1g 1 37 | Name. 
F Os 3 37 | Forty days. 
G & 14 38 His brethren. 
H = 18 38 Fate of Judas, 
I Er 24 39 Thou, Lord. 
7 sf 26 39 The Lot. 
K 108; 4 72 | Other tongues. 
L E% 27 74 Hades. 
M III. 20 87 Parousia. 
N IV. 1 100 Sadducees. 
o ee 6 101 | Annas the high priest, 
P we 20 101 For we cannot but speak, 
Q oc 24 101 Stated prayer. 
R ce 32 102 All things common, 
Ss No 1 120 Ananias, 
Ip wc 15 121 Peter’s shadow. 
U cc 36 121 Theudas, 
v var 1 131 | A murmuring. 
w er 3 132 Seven men. 
x ee 15 132 | The face of an angel. 
Y NR 2 160 | Stephen’s speech. 
z x 3 161 Historical errors. 
Al A 3 161 Abraham’s call. 
Bl & 4 162 Death of Terah. 
c! ac 6 162 Four hundred years, 
p! & 16 162 Jacob’s burial. 
el oC 19 163 Cast out . . . children. 
Fl 3G ' 30 163 An angel. 
al VALET: 1 178 | A great persecution. 
H! ge 2 179 Devout men carried Stephen. 
zu sc 13 179 Simon believed. 
a ot 14 180 Samaritans. 
X! SE 14 180 Mission of Peter and John. 
ul x 17 180 | They received the Holy Ghost. 
m! IX, it 196 | Saul. 
n! ub 2 196 Damascus. 
ol ge 3 196 | A light from heaven, 
pl x 7 197 | Stood speechless. 
q! oC 23 197 | Many days. 





RB! és 32 198 | Peter and Paul—Lydda and Joppa. 





XXX INDEX TO THE NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 















































=== 
LETTER. CHAPTER. VERSE. PAGE. NOTES. 
s! x ae 216 Conversion of Cornelius. 
mi ae 2 217 A devout man. 
u! = 10 217 Fell inte a trance. 
v! Ke 35 218 Accepted with him. 
w! XI. 3 226 | They of the circumcision contended. 
x! OG 20 227 Antioch. 
y! XII. 1 238 Herod. 
zı ge 2 238 He killed James. 
A? we 5 + 239 Peter in prison. 
B? ne 23 240 Death of Herod. 
co XIII 1 266 |. Special documentary source. 
D? “ 1,2 266 ,| Prophets and teachers. 
E? “x 5 267 John as an attendant. 
F? UG 33 267 Second psalm. 
G? x 41 267 Paul’s sermon, 
H? XIV: 1 276 Iconium. 
I? Sc 5 277 An assault made. 
a? uC 6 277 Cities of Lycaonia. 
K? Sc 11 278 Gods in the likeness of men. 
i a 23 278 Chosen them elders. 
M? Vo il 299 Except ye be circumcised. 
N X 6 300 Apostles and elders. 
0? es 13 300 James answered. 
p? GC 21 301 Paul’s visits to Jerusalem. 
Q? Re 23 302 Send greeting. 
R? ce 34 392 Verse supposed spurious. 
82 es 39 303 The contention of Paul and Barnabas. 
me XVI. 10 320 We endeavored to go. 
u? x 12 320 The chief eity. 
v? aA 15 321 Baptism of Lydia. 
w? ee 24 321 The inner prison. 
x se 33 322 And washed their stripes. 
y? XVII. 1 340 Thessalonica. 
Ze UL 12 340 Honorable women. 
aS « 15 341 | Timothy. 
B’ ce 17 342 The market-place. 
c® ae 23 343 An unknown God. 
Dp’ XVIII. 1 359 Corinth. 
ES os 15 360 Gallio. 
F3 x 18 361 Having shorn his head. 
Gs ze 24 361 Apollos. 
H3 ue 25 362 Baptism of John. 
Te XIX. 1 378 Ephesus. 
a a 2 379 Whether there be any Holy Ghost. 
KS ge 13 379 Exorcists. 
1? ot 41 380 He dismissed the assembly. 
Mm’ XX. 1-3 395 After the uproar. 
N® ne 28 396 Typ exkAnoiav Tod Kupiov. 
03 re 18-38 396 Paul’s address at Miletus. 
ps XXI, 1 412 Rhodes and Patara. 
a gi 4 413 | Disciples at Tyre. 
R? 9 413 Philip’s four daughters. 
s3 ““ 10 414 | Tarried many days. 
ne fe 26 414 Paul purifying himself. 
us XXI. 1 422 Paul’s defence. 
ye fe 27, 423 Art thou a Roman ? 
we XXII. 5 436 | I did not know that he is the high priest. 








LETTER. 





x3 
y3 
PA 
At 





INDEX TO THE NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. XXxi 


CHAPTER, 








VERSE. 








PAGE. | 


436 
437 
438 
450 
451 
452 
460 
460 
473 
491 
492 
492 
493 
493 
494 
494 
507 
508 
509 
510 
512 














NOTES, 








Pharisees and Sadducees, 
The Lord stood by him, 
Paul’s sister’s son. 
Tertullus began to accuse. 
According to our law, ete. 
Felix trembled. 

I appeal to Cesar. 

Unto my Lord. 

Almost thou persuadest me. 
And he put us therein. 


| Fair Havens. 


Toward the N. W. and S. W. 
Euroclydon. 


| The angel of God. 


They cast four anchors out of the stern. 

Except these abide, ye cannot be saved. 

Melita. 

This sect spoken against. 

Two whole years in his own hired house. 
Paul’s second imprisonment. 

Evidential value of the Acts. 








THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, 





INTRODUCTION. 
SEO, {AUTHORSHIP AND GENUINENESS OF THE BOOK. 


ned HE fifth historical book of the New Testament, already named 
N in early Christian antiquity (Canon Murat., Clem. Al. Strom. v. 
12, p. 696, ed. Potter, Tertull. e. Mare. v. 2 f., de jejun. 10, de 
ed Dbapt. 10; comp. also Iren, adv. haer. üi. 14. 1, iii. 15. 1) from 
its chief contents rpü£eıc (Tov) arooröAwv, announces itself (i. 1) as a second 
work of the same author who wrote the Gospel dedicated to Theophilus. 
The Acts of the Apostles is therefore justly considered as a portion of the 
historical work of Luke, following up that Gospel, and continuing the his- 
tory of early Christianity from the ascension of Christ to the captivity of 
Paul at Rome ; and no other but Luke is named by the ancient orthodox 
church as author of the book, which is included by Eusebius, ZZ. E, iii. 25, 
among the Homologoumena. There is indeed no definite reference made to 
the Acts by the Apostolic Fathers, as the passages, Ignat. ad Smyrn. 3 (comp. 
Acts x. 41), and Polycarp, ad Phil. 1 (comp. Acts ii. 24), cannot even be 
with certainty regarded as special reminiscences of it; and the same re- 
mark holds good as to allusions in Justin and Tatian. But, since the time 
of Irenaeus, the Fathers have frequently made literal quotations from the 
book (see also the Epistle of the churches at Vienne and Lyons in Eus. v. 
2), and have expressly designated it as the work of Luke? (A). With this 
fact before us, the passage in Photius, Quaest. Amphiloch. 145 (see Wolf 
Cur. IV. p. 731, Schmidt in Stäudlin’s Kirchenhist. Archiv, I. p. 15), might 
appear strange: ro» d2 ovyypagéa Tov mpdfewv of fev Kinuevra Akyovor tov 







"Pouns, GArot d2 Bapvaßav Kat GA2or Aovxdv Tov edayyeiıorav, but this statement 
as to Clement and Barnabas stands so completely isolated, unsupported by 
any other notice of ecclesiastical antiquity, that it can only have reference 
to some arbitrary assumption of individuals who knew little or nothing of 
the book. Were it otherwise, the Gospel of Luke must also have been 
alleged to be a work of Clement or Barnabas ; but of this there is not the 
slightest trace. That the Book of Acts was in reality much less known 
and read than the Gospels, the interest of which was the most general, 
immediate, and supreme, and than the N. T. Epistles, which were destined 
at once for whole churches, and, inferentially, for yet wider circles, is evi- 
dent from Chrysostom, Hom. TI. : roarois rovr\ rd BiBdiov ob bre Ev, yvopınov 

1Tt cannot be a matter of surprise thatour in the Canon, as there are several Gospels, 
old codd. name no author in the superscrip- needing distinctive designation by the names 


tion (only some minusculi name Luke), since of their authors. Comp. Ewald, Jahrb. IX. 
there are not several “Acts of the Apostles” p. 57. 


2 INTRODUCTION. 


fori, obre abrd, ote 6 ypapas abrö kal ovvdeis." 


And thus it is no wonder if 


many, who knew only of the existence of the Book of Acts, but had never 
read it (for the very first verse must have pointed them to Luke), guessed 
at this or that celebrated teacher, at Clement or Barnabas, as its author. 
Photius himself, on the other hand, concurs in the judgment of the church, 


for which he assigns the proper grounds : 


uev &E Ov TpooimlaceTat, OS 


mpagsers karaßeßAnraı. 


re uexpı TIS avammpews obdelS abtav TO 


’ z 


Abroc 62 Aovkds éxexpiver, Ilporov 


kai érépa ara mpayuareia, Tas deomorınüs TEpLexovoa 
Asvrepov 02, ££ @v Kai TOV dAdwy edayyeAıorav dıaoreiderat, 
ovvrayua mpoeAdetv Eroımoaro, aaa obros 


Nat ’ +) : en ¢ = en) N - ee ’ NER 
uovog Kai THY avaımypın AKPLIOC éEnynoato, kal TaALy THY THY rpusewv anapınv amo 


TAUTHS ÜMEOTNOATO. 


Moreover, so early an ecclesiastical recognition of the 


canonicity of this book would be inexplicable, if the teachers of the church 
had not from the very first recognized it as a second work of Luke, to 
which, as well as to the Gospel, apostolic (Pauline) authority belonged. 
The weight of this ancient recognition by the church is not weakened by 
the rejection of the book on the part of certain heretical parties ; for this 
affected only its validity as an authoritative standard, and was based en- 


tirely on dogmatic, particularly on anti-Pauline, motives. 


This was the 


case with the Zbionites (Epiphan. Haer. Xxx. 16), to whom the reception of 
the Gentiles into Christianity was repugnant ; with the Severians (Euseb. 
H. E. iv. 29), whose ascetic principles were incompatible with the doctrines 
of Paul; with the Marcionites (Tertull. e. Mare. v. 2, de praescr. 22), who 
could not endure what was taught in the Acts concerning the connection 
of Judaism and Christianity ; and with the Manichaeans, who took offence 
at the mission of the Holy Spirit, to which it bears testimony (Augustin. 
de utilit. credendi, ii. 7, epist. 237 [al. 253], No. 2):—From these circum- 
stances--the less measure of acquaintance with the book, and the less 
degree of veneration for it—is to be explained the somewhat arbitrary 
treatment of the text, which is still apparent in codd. (particularly D and 
E) and versions (Ital. and Syr.), although Bornemann (Acta apost. ad Codicis 


‘antabrig. fidem rec. 1848) saw in cod, D the most original form of the text 
(‘‘agmen ducit codex D haud dubie ex autographo haustus,” p. xxvill.), 


which was an evident error. 


That the Acts of the Apostles is the work of one author, follows from the 
uniformity in the character of its dietion and style (see Gersdorf, Beitr. p. 
160 ff.. Credner, Hinl. I. p. 132 ff.; Zeller, Apostelgesch. nach Inh. u. Urspr. 


Stuttg. 1854, p. 388 ff. ; and especially Lekebusch, 
d. Apostelgesch. Gotha 1854, pp. 387-79 ; 
. Apostelgesch. 1868), from the mutual 


Götting. 1866 ; Oertel, Paulus in d 


1 So much the less can it be assumed with 
certainty, from the fragment of Papias, pre- 
served by Apollinaris, on the death of Judas 
(of which the different forms of the text 
may be seen, (1) in Theophyl. on Acts i. 18, 
and Cramer, Cat. in Act. p. 12 f.;: (2) in 
Oecum. I. p. 11, Cramer, Cat. in Matth. p. 231, 
and Boissonade, Anecd. IT. p. 464 ; (3) Scholion 
in Matthaei on Acts i. 18), that Papias had in 
view the narrative of the event in the Acts, 


Composit. u. Entsteh. 
Klostermann, Vindieiae Lucanae, 


and wished to reconcile it with that of Mat- 
thew. He gives a legend respecting the death 
of Judas, deviating from that of Matthew 
and the Acts, and independent of both. « See 
the dissertations on this point: Zahn in the 
Stud. u. Krit. 1866, p. 649 ff., and in opposi- 
tion to him, Overbeck in Hilgenf. Zeitschr. 
1867, p. 35 ff.; also Steitz in the Stud. u. Krit. 
1868, p. 87 ff. 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE BOOK. 3 


references of individual passages (de Wette, Einl. § 115, and Zeller, p. 403 
ff.), and also from that unity in the tenor and connection of the essential 


leading ideas (see Lekebusch, p. 82) which pervades the whole. 


This 


similarity is of such a nature that it is compatible with a more or less 
independent manipulation of different documentary sources, but not with 
the hypothesis of an aggregation of such documentary sources, which are 


strung together with little essential 


alteration (Schleiermacher’s view ; 


comp. also Schwanbeck, über d. Quellen der Schriften des Luk. 1. p. 253, 
and earlier, Königsmann, de Jontibus, ete., 1798, in Pott’s Sylloge, III. p. 


215 ff.). 


The same peculiarities pervade the Acts and the Gospel, and 


evince the unity of authorship and the unity of literary character as to both 


books. See Zeller, p. 414 ff. 


In the passages xvi. 10-17, xx. 5-15, xxi. 1- 


18, xxvii. 1-xxviii. 16, the author expressly by “we ”’ includes himself as 


an eye-witness and sharer in the events related. 


According to Schleier- 


macher, these portions—belonging to the memoirs, strung together with- 
out elaboration, of which the book is composed—proceed from Timothy, a 
hypothesis supported by Bleek (in his Einleit., and earlier in the Stud. 


u. Krit. 1836, p. 1025 ff., p. 


1046 ff.), Ulrich (Stud. wu, 


Krit. 1837, p. 


367 ff., 1840, p. 1003 ff.), and de Wette, and consistently worked out by 


Mayerhoff (Einl. in d. Petr. Schr. I 


». 6 ff.) to the extent of ascribing the 


whole book to Timothy ; whereas Schwanbeck seeks to assign these sections, 


as well as in general almost all from xv. 1 onwards, to Silas." 


But the 


reasons, brought forward against the view that Luke is the narrator using 


the we, are wholly unimportant. 


For, not to mention that it is much more 


natural to refer the unnamed I of that narrative in the first person plural 
to Luke, who is not elsewhere named in the book, than to Timothy and 
Silas, who are elsewhere mentioned by name and distinguished from the 
subject of the we ; and apart also from the entire arbitrariness of the asser- 
tion that Luke could not have made his appearance and taken part for the 


4 


first time at xvi. 10; the circumstance that in the Epistle to the Philip- 
pians no mention of Luke occurs, although the most plausible ground of 


the objectors, is still merely such in semblance. 
that time, been absent from Philippi ! 


How long had Luke, at 
How probable, moreover, that 


Paul, who sent his letter to the Philippians by means of Epaphroditus, left 
it to the latter to communicate orally the personal information which 


was of interest to them, and therefore 
And how possible, in fine, that Luke, at the 


mary salutations as iv. 22! 


adds in the Epistle only such sum- 


time of the composition of the Philippian Epistle, was temporarily absent 
from Rome, which is strongly supported, and, indeed, is required to be 


1 Assuming, with extreme arbitrariness, 
that the redacteur has in xvi, 10 ff., misled by 
the preceding Bon@noorv naiv (!), copied the 
first person after the Silas-document, and only 
in ver. 19 felt the necessity of changing the 
nueis of Silas into the names concerned, in 
doing which, however, he has forgotten’ to 
include the name of Timothy. See Schwan- 
beck, p. 270 f., who has many other instances 


of arbitrariness, e.g. that avdpas Hyoupm. Ev 
rois adeAd., xv. 22, stood in the Silas-docn- 
ment after exAe&auevovs, and other similar 
statements, which refute themselves. The 
holding Luke and Silas as identical (van 
Vloten in Hilgenf. Zeitschr. 1867, p. 223 ff.) 
was perhaps only a passing etymological 
fancy (lucus, silva). See, in opposition to it, 
Cropp in Hilgenf. Zeitschr. 1868, p. 353 fl. 


4 INTRODUCTION. 


assumed by Phil. ii. 20 f., comp. on Phil. ii. 21. The non-mention of Luke 
in the Epistles to the Thessalonians is an unserviceable argumentum e si- 
lentio (see Lekebusch, p. 395) ; and the greater vividness of delineation, 
which is said to prevail where Timothy is present, cannot prove anything 
in contradistinction to the vividness of other parts in which he is not con- 
cerned. On the other hand, in those portions in which the “ we’ intro- 
duces the eye-witness,’ the manipulation of the Greek language, indepen- 
dent of written documents, exhibits the greatest similarity to the peculiar 
colouring of Luke’s diction as it appears in the independent portions of 
the Gospel. It is incorrect to suppose that the specification of time ac- 
cording to the Jewish festivals, xx. 6, xxvii. 9, suits Timothy better than 
Luke, for the designations of the Jewish festivals must have been every- 
where familiar in the early Christian church from its connection with 
Judaism, and particularly in the Pauline circles in which Luke, as well 
as Timothy, moved. The insuperable difficulties by which both the Timo- 
thy-hypothesis, already excluded by xx. 4 f., and the Si/as-hypothesis, un- 
tenable throughout, are clogged, only serve more strongly to confirm the 
tradition of the church that Luke, as author of the whole book, is the 
person speaking in those sections in which ‘‘we’’ occurs. See Lekebusch, 
p. 140 ff.; Zeller, p. 454 ff.; Ewald, Gesch. d. Apost. Zeitalt. p. 33 ff., 
and Jahrb. IX. p. 50 ff. ; Klostermann, l.c.; Oertel, Paul. in d. Apostelgesch.. 
p- 8 ff. In the “we’’ the person primarily narrating must have been the 
“7,” with which the whole book begins. No other understanding of the 
matter could have occurred either to Theophilus or to other readers. The 
hypothesis already propounded by Königsmann, on the other hand, that 
Luke had allowed the ‘‘ we’’ derived from the memoir of another to remain 
unchanged, as well as the converse fancy of Gfrörer (heil. Sage, I. p. 244 
f.), impute to the author something bordering on an unintelligent mechani- 
cal process, such as is doubtless found in insipid chroniclers of the Middle 
Ages (examples in Schwanbeck, p. 188 ff.), but must appear utterly alien 
and completely unsuitable for comparison in presence of such company as 
we have here. 

Recent criticism, however, has contended that the Acts could not be 
composed at all by a companion of the Apostle Paul (de Wette, Baur, 
Schwegler, Zeller, Köstlin, Hilgenfeld, and others). For this purpose they 
have alleged contradictions with the Pauline Epistles (ix. 19, 23, 25-28, x1. 
30, compared with Gal. i. 17-19, ii.1; xvii. 16 f., xviii. 5, with 1 Thess. 
iii. 1 f.), inadequate accounts (xvi. 6, xviii. 22 f., xxviii. 30 f.), omission 
of facts (1 Cor. xv. 82; 2 Cor. i. 8, xi. 25 f. ; Rom. xv. 19, xvi. 3 f.), and 
the partially unhistorical character of the first portion of the book (accord- 
ing to de Wette, particularly ii. 5-11), which is even alleged to be ‘‘a con- 
tinuous fiction’? (Schwegler, nachapostol. Zeitalt. I. p. 90, II. p. 111 f.). 
They have discovered un-Pauline miracles (xxviii. 7-10), un-Pauline 
speeches and actions (xxi. 20 ff., xxiii. 6 ff., chap. xxii., xxvi.), an un- 
Pauline attitude (towards Jews and Jewish-Christians : approval of the 


1 Especially chap. xxvii. and xxviii. See erally, Oertel, Paul. in d. Apostelgesch. p. 
Klostermann, Vindic. Luc. p. 50 ff. ; and gen- 28 ff. 


GENUINENESS, 5 


apostolic decree). It is alleged that the formation of legend in the book 
(particularly the narrative of Simon and of Pentecost) belongs to a later 
period, and that the entire tendency of the writing (see sec. 2) points toa 
later stage of ecclesiastical development (see especially Zeller, p. 470 ff.) ; 
also that its politically apologetic design leads us to the time of Trajan, 
or later (Schwegler, II. p. 119) ; that the jes in the narrative of the 
travels (held even by Köstlin, Urspr. d. Synopt. Evang. p. 292, to be the 
genuine narrative of a friend of the apostle) is designedly allowed to stand 
by the author of the book, who wishes to be recognized thereby as a com- 
panion of the Apostle (according to Köstlin : for the purpose of strengthen- 
ing the credibility and the impression of the apologetic representation) ; 
and that the Book of Acts is ‘‘the work of a Pauline member of the Ro- 
man church, the time of the composition of which may most probably be 
placed between the years 110 and 125, or even 130 after Christ ” (Zeller, 
p- 488). But all these and similar grounds do not prove what they are al- 
leged to prove, and do not avail to overthrow the ancient ecclesiastical rec- 
ognition. For although the book actually contains various matters, in 
which it must receive correction from the Pauline Epistles ; although the 
history, even of Paul the apostle, is handled in it imperfectly and, in part, 
inadequately ; although in the first portion, here and there, a post-apostolic 
formation of legend is unmistakeable ; yet all these elements are compat- 
ible with its being the work of a companion of the apostle, who, not 
emerging as such earlier than chap. xvi., only undertook to write the 
history some time after the apostle’s death, and who, when his personal 
knowledge failed, was dependent on tradition developed orally and in 
writing, partly legendary, because he had not from the first entertained the 
design of writing a history, and had now, in great measure, to content 
himself with the matter and the form given to him by the tradition, in 
the atmosphere of which he himself lived. Elements really wn-Pauline 
cannot be shown to exist in it, and the impress of a definite tendency in the 
book, which is alleged to betray a later stage of ecclesiastical development, 
is simply imputed to it by the critics. The We-narrative, with its vivid and 
direct impress of personal participation, always remains a strong testimony 
in favour of a companion of the apostle as author of the whole book, of 
which that narrative is a part; to separate the subject of that narrative 
from the author of the whole, is a procedure of sceptical caprice. The 
surprisingly abridged and abrupt conclusion of the book, and the silence 
concerning the last labours and fate of the Apostle Paul, as well as the 
silence concerning the similar fate of Peter, are phenomena which are in- 
telligible only on the supposition of a real and candid companion of the 
apostle being prevented by circumstances from continuing his narrative, 
but would be altogether inconceivable in the case of an author not writing 
till the second century, and manipulating with a definite tendency the his- 
torical materials before him,—inconceivable, because utterly at variance 
with his supposed designs. The hypothesis, in fine, that the tradition of 
Luke’s authorship rests solely on an erroneous inference from the nueis in the 
narrative of the travels (comp. Col. iv. 14; 2 Tim. iv. 11; see especially 


6 INTRODUCTION. 


Köstlin, p. 291), is so arbitrary and so opposed to the usual unreflecting 
mode in which such traditions arise, that, on the contrary, the ecclesiasti- 
cal tradition is to be explained, not from the wish to have a Pauline Gos- 
pel, but from the actual possession of one, and from a direct certainty as to 
its author.—The Book of Acts has very different stages of credibility, from 
the lower grade of the legend partially enwrapping the history up to that 
of vivid, direct testimony ; it is to be subjected in its several parts to free 
historical criticism, but to be exempted, at the same time, from the scep- 
ticism and injustice which (apart from the attacks of Schrader and Gfrörer) 
it has largely experienced at the hands of Baur and his school, after the 
more cautious but less consistent precedent set by Schneckenburger (über 
d. Zweck d. Apostelgesch. 1841.) On the whole, the book remains, in con- 
nection with the historical references in the apostolic Epistles, the fullest 
and surest source of our knowledge of the apostolic times, of which we 
always attain most completely a trustworthy view when the Book of Acts 
bears part in this testimony, although in many respects the Epistles have 
to be brought in, not merely as supplementing, but also in various points 
as deciding against particular statements of our book (B). 


Notes BY AMERICAN EDITOR. 


(A) 

«This work, as well as the Gospel, being anonymous, attempts have been 
made to refer the authorship to some other person than St Luke.’ ‘* We are 
inclined to give the weight which it deserves to the ancient opinion, and to ac- 
cept the traditional view of the origin of both the Gospel and the Acts, rather 
than any of the modern suppositions, which are very difficult to be reconciled 
with the statements in the Acts and the Epistles, and which are the mere 
offspring of critical imaginations.” (Lumby) 

The evidence that Luke wrote the Acts is threefold :—The explicit testimony 
of the early Christian writers—the relation in which the Acts stands to the 
Gospel which is ascribed to Luke—and the similarity of style in the two books, 
—See Introductions to the Acts, by Hackett, and by Abbott. 


(B) 

In the preface to the Gospel the writer speaks of his perfect understanding 
of all the things whereof he was about to write, implying the utmost care on 
his part accurately to ascertain the facts. The same course was doubtless 
adopted by him in writing this second treatise. With the opportunities at his 
command of personal observation, of intercourse with the parties concerned in 
the events recorded, and probably of the aid of written documents, and with 
his admitted claims for diligence in use of them, the writer of the Acts merits 
the highest confidence granted to the best accredited testimony. Professor 
Hackett, in his Introduction to the Acts, says: ‘We have not only every 
reason to regard the history of Luke as authentic, because he wrote it with 
such facilities for knowing the truth, but because we find it sustaining its 
credit under the severest scrutiny to which it is possible that an ancient work 
should be subjected.’’ “This history has been confronted with the Epistles 
of the N. T. and it has been shown as the result, that the incidental corre- 
spondences between them and the Acts are numerous and of the most striking 


AIM AND SOURCES OF THE BOOK. 7 


kind.” “The speeches in the Acts which purport to have been delivered by 
Peter, Paul, and James have been compared with the known productions of 
these men ; and it is found that they exhibit an agreement with them, in point 
of thought and expression, which the supposition of their common origin 
would lead us to expect.” “We have a decisive test of the trustworthiness of 
Luke in the consistency of his statements and allusions with the information 
which contemporary writers have given us respecting the age in which he lived 
and wrote.” 


SEC. I.—AIM AND SOURCES OF THE BOOK. 


When the aim of the Acts has been defined by saying that Luke wished 
to give us a history of missions for the diffusion of Christianity (Eich- 
horn), or a Pauline church-history (Credner), or, more exactly and cor- 
rectly, a history of the extension of the church from Jerusalem to Rome 
(Mayerhoff, Baumgarten, Guericke, Lekebusch, Ewald, Oertel), there is, 
strictly speaking, a confounding of the contents with the aim. Certainly, 
Luke wished to compose a history of the development of the church from 
its foundation until the period when Paul laboured at Rome ; but his work 
was primarily a private treatise, written for Theophilus, and the clearly ex- 
pressed aim of the composition of the Gospel (Luke i. 4) must hold good 
also for the Acts en account of the connection in which our book, accord- 
ing to Acts i. 1, stands with the Gospel. To confirm to Theophilus, in the 
way of history, the Christian instruction which he had received, was an 
end which might after the composition of the Gospel be yet more fully at- 
tained ; for the further development of Christianity since the time of the as- 
cension, its victorious progress through Antioch, Asia Minor, and Greece 
up to its announcement by Paul himself in Rome, the capital of the world, 
might and ought, according to the view of Luke, to serve that purpose. 
Hence he wrote this history ; and the selection and limitation of its con- 
tents were determined partly by the wants of Theophilus, partly by his 
own Pauline individuality, as well as by his sources ; so that, after the pre- 
Pauline history in which Peter is the chief person, he so takes up Paul and 
his work, and almost exclusively places them! in the foreground down to 
the end of the book, that the history becomes henceforth biographical, and 
therefore even the founding of the church of Rome—which, if Luke had 
designed to write generally, and on its own account, a mere history of the 
extension of the church from Jerusalem to Rome, he would not, and could 
not, have omitted—found no place. The Pauline character and circle of 
ideas of the author, and his relation to Theophilus, make it also easy 
enough to understand how not only the Jewish apostles, and even Peter, 


1 The parallel between the two apostles is 
not made up, but historically given. Both 
were the representatives of apostolic activ- 
ity, and what the Acts informs us of them is 
like an extended commentary on Gal. ii. 8. 
Comp. Thiersch, Kirche im upostol. Zeitalt. 
p. 120f. At the same time, the purpose of 
the work as a private composition is always 


to be kept in view ; as such it might, accord- 
ing to its relation to the receiver, mention 
various important matters but briefly or not 
at all, and describe very circumstantially 
others of less importance. The author, like 
a letter-writer, was in this untrammelled. 
Comp. C. Bertheau, über Gal. ii. (Programm), 
Hamb. 1854. 


8 INTRODUCTION. 


fall gradually into the background in the history, but also how the re- 
flection of Paulinism frequently presents itself in the pre-Pauline half 
(‘‘hence this book might well be called a gloss on the Epistles of St. 
Paul,’’ Luther’s Preface). One who was not a disciple of Paul could not 
have written such a history of the apostles. The fact that even in respect 
of Paul himself the narrative is so defective and in various points even inap- 
propriate, as may be proved from the letters of the apostle, is sufficiently 
explained from the limitation and quality of the accounts and sources with 
which Luke, at the late period when he wrote, had to content himself and 
to make shift, where he was not better informed by his personal knowledge 
or by the apostle or other eye-witnesses. 

Nevertheless, the attempt has often been made to represent our book asa 
composition marked by a set apologetic’ and dogmatic purpose. A justifi- 
cation of the Apostle Paul, as regards the admission of the Gentiles into the 
Christian church, is alleged by Griesbach, Diss. 1798, Paulus, Frisch, Diss. 
1817, to be its design ; against which view Eichhorn decidedly declared 
himself. More recently Schneckenburger (üb. d. Zweck d. Apostelgesch. 
1841) has revived this view with much acuteness, to the prejudice of the 
historical character of the book. By Baur (at first in the Tüb. Zeitschr. 
1836, 3, then especially in his Paulus 1845, second edition edited by Zeller, 
1866, also in his neutest. Theol. p. 331 ff., and in his Gesch. der drei ersten 
Jahrb. 1860, ed. 2) a transition was made, as regards the book, from the 
apologetic to the conciliatory standpoint. He was followed specially by 
Schwegler, nachapost. Zeitalt. I. p. 73 ff. ; Zeller, p. 320 ff.; and Volkmar, 
Relig. Jesu, p. 336 ff.; while B. Bauer (d. Apostelgesch. eine Ausgleichung des 
Paulinismus und Judenthums, 1850) pushed this treatment to the point of 
self-annihilation. According to Schneckenburger, the design of the Acts 
is the justification of the Apostle Paul against all the objections of the 
Judaizers ; on which account the apostle is only represented in that side of 
his character which was turned towards Judaism, and in the greatest pos- 
sible similarity to Peter (see, in opposition to this, Schwanbeck, Quellen d. 
Tuk. p. 94 ff.). In this view the historical credibility of the contents is 
maintained, so far as Luke has made the selection of them for his particular 
purpose (c). This was, indeed, only a partial carrying out of the purpose- 
hypothesis ; but Baur, Schwegler, and Zeller have carried it out to its full 
consequences,” and have, without scruple, sacrificed to it the historical 


1 Aberle, in the theol. Quartalschr. 1853, p. 
173 ff., has maintained a view of the apolo- 
getic design of the book peculiar to himself ; 
namely, that 1t was intended to defend Paul 
against the accusation still pending against 
him in Rome. Everything of this nature is 
invented without any indication whatever 
in the text, and is contradicted by the pro- 
logues of the Gospel and the Acts. 

2 Certainly we are not carried by the Acts, 
* as we are by the Pauline Epistles, into the 
fresh, living, fervent conflict of Paulinism 
with Judaism; and so this later work may 


appear as a work of peace (Reuss, @esch. d. 
N. T. p. 206, ed. 4) and reconciliation, in the 
composition of which it is conceivable 
enough of itself, and without imputing to it 
conciliatory tendencies, that Luke, who did 
not write till long after the death of Paul and 
the destruction of Jerusalem, already looked 
back on those conflicts from another calmer 
and more objective standpoint, when the 
Pauline ministry presented itself to him in 
its entirety as the manifestation of the great 
principle, 1 Cor. ix. 19 ff. 


7 


AIM AND SOURCES OF THE BOOK, 9 


character of the contents. They affirm that the Paul of the Acts, in his 
compliance towards Judaism, is entirely different from the apostle as ex- 
hibited in his Epistles (Baur) ; that he is converted into a Judaizing Chris- 
tian, as Peter and James are converted into Pauline Christians (Schwegler) ; 
and that our book, as a proposal of a Pauline Christian towards peace by 
concessions of his party to Judaism, was in this respect intended to influ- 
ence both parties, but especially had in view the Roman church (Zeller), 
The carrying out of this view—according to which the author, with ‘set 
reflection on the means for attaining his end,’ would convert the Gentile 
apostle into a Petrine Christian, and the Jewish apostles into Pauline 
Christians—imputes to the Book of Acts an imperceptibly neutralizing 
artfulness and dishonesty of character, and a subtlety of distortion in 
breaking off the sharp points of history, and even of inventing facts, which 
are irreconcilable with the simplicity and ingenuous artlessness of this writ- 
ing, and indeed absolutely stand even in moral contradiction with its 
Christian feeling and spirit, and with the express assurance in the preface 
of the Gospel. And in the conception of the details this hypothesis neces- 
sitates a multitude of suppositions and interpretations, which make the re- 
proach of a designed concoction of history and of invention for the sake of 
an object, that they are intended to establish, recoil on such a criticism 
itself. See the Commentary. The most thorough special refutation may 
be seen in Lekebusch, p. 253 ff., and Oertel, Paulus in d. Apostelgesch. p. 
183 ff. Comp. also Lechler, apost. u. nachapost. Zeitalt. p. 7 ff. ; Ewald, 
Jahrb. IX. p. 62 ff. That, moreover, such an inventive reconciler of Paul- 
inism and Petrinism, who is, moreover, alleged to have not written till the 
second century, should have left unnoticed the meeting of the apostles, 
Peter and Paul, at Rome, and their contemporary death, and not have 
rather turned them to account for placing the crown on his work so pur- 
posely planned ; and that instead of this, after many other incongruities 
which he would have committed, he should have closed Paul’s intercourse 
with the Jews (chap. xxviii. 25 ff.) with a rejection of them from the apos- 
tle’s own mouth,—would be just as enigmatical as would be, on the other 
hand, the fact, that the late detection of the plan should, in spite of 
the touchstone continually present in Paul’s Epistles, have remained re- 
served for the searching criticism of the present day. 

As regards the sources (see Riehm, de fontibus, etc., Traj. ad Rhen. 1821 ; 
Schwanbeck, üb. d. Quellen d. Schriften d. Luk. I. 1847; Zeller, p. 289 ff.; * 
Lekebusch, p. 402 ff.; Ewald, @esch. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 40 ff. ed. 3), it is 
to be generally assumed from the contents and form of the book, and from 
the analogy of Luke i. 1, that Luke, besides the special communications 
which he had received from Paul and from intercourse with apostolic men, 
besides oral tradition generally, and besides, in part, his own personal 
knowledge (the latter from xvi. 10 onwards), also made use of written doc- 
uments. But he merely made use of them, and did not simply string them 
together (as Schleiermacher held, Einl. in d. N. T. p. 360 ff.). For the 
use has, at any rate, taken place with such independent manipulation, that 
the attempts accurately to point out the several documentary scurces em- 


10 INTRODUCTION. 


ployed, particularly as regards their limits and the elements of them that 
have remained unaltered, fail to lead to any sure result. For such an inde- 
pendent use he might be sufliciently qualified by those serviceable con- 
nections which he maintained, among which is to be noted his intercourse 
with Mark (Col. iv. 10, 14), and with Philip and his prophetic daughters 
(xxi. 8, 9); as, indeed, that independence is confirmed by the essential 
similarity in the character of the style (although, in the first part, in ac- 
cordance with the matters treated of and with the Aramaic traditions and 
documentary sources, it is more Hebraizing), and in the employment of 
the Septuagint. The use of a written (probably Hebrew) document con- 
cerning Peter (not to be confounded with the «yjpvyua llerpov), of another 
concerning Stephen, and of a missionary narrative perhaps belonging to 
it (chap. xiii. and xiv.; see Bleek in the Stud. u. Krit. 1836, p. 1043 f.; 
comp. also Ewald, p. 41 f.), is assumed with the greatest probability ; less 
probably a special document concerning Barnabas, to which, according to 
Schwanbeck, iv. 36 f., ix. 1-30, xi. 19-30, xii. 25, xiii. 1-14, 28, xv. 24 be- 
longed. In the case also of the larger speeches and letters of the book, so 
far as personal knowledge or communications from those concerned failed 
him, and when tradition otherwise was insufficient, Luke must have been 
dependent on the documents indicated above and others ; still, however, 
in such a manner that—and hence so much homogeneity of stamp—his own 
reproduction withal was more or less active. To seek to prove in detail 
the originality of the apostolic speeches from the apostolic letters, is an 
enterprise of impossibility or of self-deceiving presupposition ; however 
little on the whole and in the main the genuineness of these speeches, ac- 
cording to the respective characters and situations, may reasonably be 
doubted. As regards the history of the apostolic council in particular, 
the Epistle to the Galatians, not so much as even known to Luke, although 
it supplements the apostolic narrative, cannot, any more than any of the 
other Pauline Epistles, be considered as a source (in opposition to Zeller); 
and the apostolic decree, which cannot be a creation of the author, must 
be regarded as the reproduction of an original document. In general, it 
is to be observed that, as the question concerning the sources of Luke 
was formerly @ priori precluded by the supposition of simple reports of 
eye-witnesses (already in the Canon Murat.), recently, no less a priori, the 
same question has been settled in an extreme negative sense by the as- 
sumption that he purposely drew from his own resources ; while Credner, 
de Wette, Bleek, Ewald, and others have justly adhered to three sources 
of information— written records, oral information and tradition (Luke 1. 
1 ff.), and the author’s personal knowledge ; and Schwanbeck has, with 
much acuteness, attempted what is unattainable in the way of recognizing 
and separating the written documents, with the result of degrading the 
book into a spiritless compilation... The giving up the idea of written 





1 According to Schwanbeck, the redaetenr biography of Barnabas ; (4) The memoirs of 
of the book has used the four following doc- Silas. Of these writings he has pieced togeth- 
uments: (1) A biography of Peter; (2) A rhe- er only single portions almost unchanged ; 
torical work on the death of Stephen; (3) A hence he appears essentially as a compiler. 


TIME AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION. 41 


sources—the conclusion which Lekebusch has reached py the path of 
thorough inquiry—is all the less satisfactory, the later the time of com- 
position has to be placed and the historical character of the contents withal 
to be maintained. See also, concerning the derivation of the Petrine 
speeches from written sources, Weiss in the Krit. Beiblatt 2. Deutsch. 
Zeitschr. 1854, No. 10 f., and in reference to their doctrinal tenor and its 
harmony with the Epistle of Peter, Weiss, Petr. Lehrbegr. 1855, and bibl. 
Theol. 1868, p. 119 ff." Concerning the relation of the Pauline history 
and speeches to the Pauline epistles, see Trip, Paulus in d. Apostelgesch. 
1866 ; Oertel, Paulus in d. Apostelgesch. 1868. Comp. also Oort, Inguir. in 
orat., quae in Act. ap. Paulo tribuuntur, indolem Paulin. L. B. 1862 ; Hof- 
stede de Groot, Vergelijking van den Paulus der Brieven met dien der Handel- 
ingen, Gröning. 1860. 


NOTE BY AMERICAN EDITOR. 
(c) 

“ The Book is a special history of the planting and extension of the church, 
both among Jews and Gentiles, by the gradual establishment of radiating 
centres, or sources of influence, at certain salient points throughout a large 
part of the empire, beginning at Jerusalem and ending at Rome.” ( Alexander.) 

“The church of Christ described with respect to its founding, its guidance, 
and its extension, in Israel and among the Gentiles, from Jerusalem even to 
Rome.’ (Lange.) 

The Acts like the Gospel is addressed to one individual for his information 
and instruction, but not designed for him alone. Luke wrote his history to 
preserve the memorials of the Apostles for Christians of all ages. 


SEC. IIH.— TIME AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION. 


As the Gospel of Luke already presupposes the destruction of Jerusalem 
(xxi. 20-25), the Acts of the Apostles must have been written after that 
event. Acts viii. 26 cannot be employed to establish the view that the 
book was composed during the Jewish war, shortly before the destruction of 
the city (Hug, Schneckenburger, Lekebusch ; see on viii. 26). The non- 
mention of that event does not serve to prove that it had not yet occurred, 
but rather leads to the inference that it had happened a considerable time 
ago. A more definite approximation is not possible. As, however, the 
Gospel of John must be considered as the latest of the four, but still be- 
Jongs to the first century, perhaps to the second last decade of that cen- 
tury (see Introduction to John, sec. 5), there is sufficient reason to place 
the third Gospel within the seventh decade, and the time of the composi- 
tion of the Acts cannot be more definitely ascertained. Yet, as there must 
have been a suitable interval between it and the Gospel (comp. on i. 3), it 
may have reached perhaps the close of the seventh decade, or about the 
year 80; so that it may be regarded as nearly contemporary with the Gos- 
pel of John, and nearly contemporary also with the history of the Jewish 


1 With justice Weiss lays stress on the Acts as being the oldest doctrinal records of 
importance of the Petrine speeches in the the apostolic age. 


2 INTRODUCTION. 5 


war by Josephus. The vague statement of Irenaeus, Zaer. iii. 1 (Euseb, v. 
8), that Luke wrote his Gospel after the death of Peter and Paul, comes 
nearest to this definition of the time. On the other hand, the opinion, 
which has prevailed since the days of Jerome, that the close of the book, 
which breaks off before the death of the apostle, determines this point of 
time as the date of composition (so Michaelis, Heinrichs, Riehm, Paulus, 
Kuinoel, Schott, Guericke, Ebrard, Lange, and others), wbile no doubt 
most favourable to the interest of its apostolic authority, is wholly unten- 
able. That the death of the apostle is not narrated, has hardly its reason 
in political considerations (my former conjecture), as such considerations 
could not at least stand in the way of a quite simple historical mention of 
the well-known fact. But it is to be rejected as an arbitrary supposition, 
especially considering the solemn form of the conclusion itself analogous to 
the conclusion of the Gospel, that the author was prevented from finishing 
the work (Schleiermacher), or that the end has been lost (Schott). Wholly 
unnatural also are the opinions, that Luke has, by narrating the diffusion 
(more correctly : the Pauline preaching) of the gospel as far as Rome (ac- 
cording to Hilgenfeld, with the justification of the Pauline Gentile-church 
up to that point), attained his end (see Bengel on xxviii. 31, and especially 
Baumgarten’) ; or that the author was led no further by his document (de 
Wette) ; or that he has kept silence as to the death of Paul of set purpose 
(Zeller), which, in point of fact, would have been stupid. The simplest 
and, on account of the compendious and abrupt conclusion, the most natu- 
ral hypothesis is rather that, after his second treatise, Luke intended to 
write a third (Heinrichs, Credner, Ewald, Bleek). As he concludes his 
Gospel with a short—probably even amplified in the teatus receptus (see 
critical note on Luke xxiv. 51, 52)—indication of the ascension, and then 
commences the Acts with a detailed narrative of it ; so he concludes the 
Acts with but a short indication of the Roman ministry of Paul and its 
duration, but would probably have commenced the third book with a de- 
tailed account of the labours and fate of Paul at Rome, and perhaps also 
would have furnished a record concerning the other apostles (of whom he 
had as yet communicated so little), especially of Peter and his death, as 
well as of the further growth of Christianity in other lands. By what 
circumstances he was prevented from writing such a continuation of the 
history (perhaps by death), cannot be determined. 

To determine the place of composition beyond doubt, is impossible. 
With the traditional view of the time of composition since the days of 
Jerome falls also the certainty of the prevalent opinion that the book was 
written in Rome ; which opinion is not established by the reasons assigned 


1 So also Lange, apostol. Zeitalt. I. p. 107; 
Otto, geschichtl. Verh. d. Pastoral-briefe, p. 
189. This opinion is unnatural, because it 
was just in the issue of the trial—whether 
that consisted in the execution (Otto) or in 
the liberation of the apostle—that the Paul- 
ine work at Rome had its culmination, glori- 
fying Christ and fulfilling the apostolic task 


(Luke xxiv. 47). See Phil. i.20. How im- 
portant must it therefore have been for Luke 
to narrate that issue, if he should not have 
had for the present other reasons for being 
silent upon it! That Luke Anew what became 
of Paul after his two years’ residence in 
Rome, is self-evident from the words £newve 
de Suetiay x. T. A., XXVili. 80, 


CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY. 13 


on the part of Zeller, Lekebusch, and Ewald. Still more arbitrary, how- 
ever, is its transference to Alexandria (Mill, according to subscriptions in 
codd. and vss. of the Gospel), to Antioch, or to Greece (Hilgenfeld) ; and 
not less so the referring it to Hellenic Asia Minor (Köstlin, p. 294). 


REMARK.— The circumstance that there is no trace of the use of the Pauline 
Epistles in the Acts, and that on the other hand things occur in it at variance 
with the historical notices of these Epistles, is, on the whole, a weighty argu- 
ment against the late composition of the book, as assumed by Baur, Schwegler, 
Zeller, and others, and against its alleged character of a set purpose. How 
much matter would the Pauline Epistles have furnished to an author of the 
second century in behalf of his iftentional fabrications of history! How 
much would the Epistle to the Romans itself in its dogmatic bearing have 
furnished in favour of Judaism! And so clever a fabricator of history would 
have known how to use it, as well as how to avoid deviations from the his- 
torical statements of the Pauline Epistles. What has been adduced from the 
book itself as an indication of its composition in the second century (110-130) 
is either no such indication, as, for example, the existence of a copious Gospel- 
literature (Luke i. 1) ; or is simply imported into it by the reader, such as the 
alleged germs of a hierarchical constitution ; see Lekebusch, p. 422 ff. 


SEC. IV.—CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY OF THE ACTS. 


Agr. Dion. 31, v.c. 784 (D). The risen Jesus ascends to heaven. Matthias 
becomes an apostle. The outpouring of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, and its 
immediate consequences (i. and ii.).—Since, according to the well-founded 
assumption that the feast meant at John v. 1 is not a Passover, it must be 
considered as certain that the time of the public ministry of Jesus em- 
braced no more than three paschal feasts (John ii. 13, vi. 4, xii. ff.), conse- 
quently only two years and some months ;' as it is further certain that our 
Lord was not crucified on the 15th, but on the 14th of the month Nisan, 
which fell on a Friday ;* according to the researches founded on the 
Jewish calendar by Wurm (in Bengel’s Arch. II. p. 1 ff., p. 261 ff.) and 
Anger (de tempor. in Act. ap. ratione, Lips. 1833, pp. 80-88), the date laid 
down above appears to result as the most probable (‘‘anno 31, siquidem is 
intercalaris erat, diem Nisani 14 et 15, anno 33, siquidem vulgaris erat, 
diem Nisani 14, anno vero 32 neutrum in Veneris diem incidere potuisse. 
Atqui anno 33, ideo quod ille annum sabbaticum proxime antecedebat, 
Adarus alter adjiciendus erat. Ergo neque annum 32 neque 33 pro ultimo 
vitae Christi anno haberi posse apparet,’’ Anger, p. 38). Nevertheless, the 
uncertainty of the Jewish calendar would not permit us to attain to any 
quite reliable result, if there were no other confirmatory points. But here 


1 The Fathers, who assumed only one year 
for the public ministry of Jesus, considered 
His death as occurring in the year 782, under 
the consulship of Rubellius Geminus and 
Fufius Geminus, which is not to be reconciled 
with Luke iii. 1. See Seyffurth, Chronol. 
sacra, p. 115 ff. 

.2 Every calculation which is based on the 


15th of Nisan as the day of the death of Jesus 
(so Wieseler, according to whom it happened 
on 7th April 30) is destitute of historical foun- 
dation, because at variance with the exact 
account of John, which must turn the scale 
against the Synoptical narrative (see on John 
xviii, 28). 


14 INTRODUCTION. 


comes in Luke iii. 1, according to which John appeared in the 15th year 
of the reign' of Tiberius, ©.e. from 19th August 781 to 19th August 782 
(see on Luke, /.c.*). And if it must be assumed that Jesus began his 
public teaching very soon after the appearance of John, at all events in the 
same year, then the first Passover of the ministry of Jesus (John ii. 13) 
was that of the year 782; the second (John vi. 4), that of the year 783 ; 
the third (John xii. ff.), that of the year 784. With this agrees the state- 
ment of the Jews on the first public appearance of Jesus in Jerusalem, that 
(see on John ii. 20) the temple had been a-building during a period of 46 
years. This building, namely, had been commenced in the 18th year of 
the reign of Herod the Great (i.e. autumn 734-735). If now, as it was 
the interest of the Jews at John ii. 20 to specify as long an interval as 
possible, the first year as not complete is not included in the calculation, 
there results as the 46th year (reckoned from 735-736), the year from 
autumn 781 to autumn 782; and consequently as the first Passover, that 
of the year 782. The same result comes out, if the first year of the build- 
ing be reckoned 734-735, and the full 46 years are counted in, so that 
when the words John ii. 20 were spoken, the seven and fortieth year (7.e. 
autumn 781-782) was already current.—Arr. Dron. 31-34, u.c. 784-787. 
Peter and John, after the healing of the lame man (iii.), are arrested and brought 
before the Sanhedrim (iv.) ; death of Ananias and his wife (v. 1-11) ; prosper- 
ity of the youthful church (v. 12-16) ; persecution of the apostles (v. 17-42). 
As Saul’s conversion (see the following paragraph) occurred during the 
continuance of the Stephanic persecution, so the ezecution of Stephen is to be 
placed in the year 33 or 34 (vi. 8-vii.), and not long before this, the election 
of the managers of alms (vi. 1-7) ; and nearly contemporary with that con- 
version is the diffusion of Christianity by the dispersed (viii. 4), the minis- 
try of Philip in Samaria (viii. 5 ff.), and the conversion of the chamberlain 
(viii. 26 ff.). What part of this extraneous activity of the emigrants is to be 
placed before, and what after, the conversion of Paul, cannot be deter- 
mined.-—AER. Dion. 35, u.c. 788. Paul’s conversion (ix. 1-19), 17 years be- 
fore the apostolic council (see on Gal. ii. 1).— According to 2 Cor. xi. 82, 
Damascus, when Paul escaped thence to betake himself to Jerusalem (ix. 
24-26), was under the rule of the Arabian King Aretas. The taking pos- 
session of this city by Aretas is not, indeed, recorded by any other author, 
but must be assumed as historically attested by that very passage, because 
there the ethnarch of Aretas appears in the active capacity of governor of 
the city,’ and his relation to the 6A Aayuackyvév is supposed to be well 


1 Not of his joint reign, from which Wiese- 
ler now reckons in Herzog’s Zncykl. XXI. p. 
547. 

2 In presence of this quite definite state- 
ment of the year of the emperor, the differ- 
ent combinations, which have been made on 
the basis of the accounts of Josephus con- 
cerning the war between Antipas and Aretas 
in favour of a later date for the public ap- 
pearance of Jesus (34-35; Keim, Gesch. Jesu, 
I. p. 620 ff.), necessarily give way. These, 


moreover, are not sufficiently reliable for an 
exact marking off of the year, to induce us 
to set aside the year of the emperor men- 
tioned by Luke, which could only be based 
on general notoriety, and the exact specifica- 
tion of which regulates and controls the 
synchronistie notices in Luke iii. 1 f. 

3 Not merely of a judicial chief of the Ara- 
bian population of Damascus, subordinate to 
the Roman authority (Keim in Schenkel’s 
Bibellex. I. p. 239.) There is no historical 


CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY. 15 


known to the readers. It is therefore very arbitrary to regard this relation 
as a temporary private one, and not as a real dominion (Anger: “forte 
fortuna eodem, quo apostolum tempore propter negotia nescio quae Da- 
masci versatum esse,’’ and that he, either of his own accord or at the request 
of the Jews, obtained permission for the latter from the magistrates of 
Damascus to watch the gates). The time, when the Arabian king became 
master of Damascus, is assigned with much probability, from what Josephus 
informs us of the relations of Aretas to the Romans, to the year 37, after 
the death of Tiberius in March of that year. Tiberius, namely, had charged 
Vitellius, the governor of Syria, to take either dead or alive Aretas, who 
had totally defeated the army of Herod Antipas, his faithless son-in-law 
(Joseph. Antt. xviii. 5. 1). Vitellius, already on his march against him 
(Joseph. l.c. xviii. 5. 3), received in Jerusalem the news of the death of the 
emperor, which occurred on the 16th of March 37, put his army into winter 
quarters, and journeyed to Rome. Now this was for Aretas, considering 
his warlike and irritated attitude toward the Roman power, certainly the 
most favourable moment for falling upon the rich city of Damascus—which, 
besides, had formerly belonged to his ancestors (Joseph. Antt. xiii. 15. 2)— 
because the governor and general-in-chief of Syria was absent, the army 
was inactive, and new measures were to be expected from Rome. The king, 
however, did not remain long in possession of the conquered city. For when, 
in the second year of Caligula (i.e. in the year from 16th March 38 to 16th 
March 39), the Arabian affairs were regulated (Dio Cass. lix. 9. 12), Damas- 
cus cannot have been overlooked. This city was too important for the ob- 
jects of the Roman government in the East, to allow us to assume with 
probability— what Wieseler, p. 172 ff., and on Gal. p. 599, assumes '—that, 
at the regulation of the Arabian affairs, it had only just come by way of 
gift into the hands of Aretas, or (with Ewald, p. 339) that according to 
agreement it had remained in his possession during his lifetime, so that he 
would have to be regarded as a sort of Roman vassal. This, then, limits 
the flight of Paul from Damascus to the period of nearly two years from 
the summer of 37 to the spring of 39. As, however, it is improbable that 
Aretas had entrusted the keeping of the city gates to the Jews in what 
remained of the year 37, which was certainly still disturbed by military 
movements ; and as his doing so rather presupposes a quiet and sure pos- 
session of the city, and an already settled state of matters ; there remains 
only the year 38 and the first months of the year 39. And even these first 
months of the year 39 are excluded, as, according to Dio Cassius, /.c., 
Caligula apportioned Arabia in the second year of his reign ; accordingly 
Aretas can hardly have possessed the conquered city up to the very end of 
that year, especially as the importance of the matter for the Oriental inter- 
ests of the Romans made an early arrangement of the affair extremely 
probable. Every month Caligula became more dissolute and worthless ; 
and certainly the securing of the dangerous East would on this account 


trace of the relation thus conjectured, and 1 See also his three articles in Herzog’s 
it would hardly have included a jurisdiction Encykl.; Aretas, Galaterbrief, and Zeitrech- 
over the Jew Saul. nung, neutest. 


16 INTRODUCTION. 


rather be accelerated than delayed. Accordingly, if the year 38! be ascer- 
tained as that of the flight of Paul, there is fixed for his conversion, be- 
tween which and his flight a period of three years intervened (Gal. i. 18), 
the year 35.—Aer. Dion. 36, 37, u.c. 789, 790. Paul labours as a preacher 
of the gospel in Damascus, ix. 20-23 ; journey to Arabia and return to Da- 
mascus (see on ix. 19).—Arr. Dion. 38, v.c. 791. His flight from Damascus 
and first journey to Jerusalem (ix. 23-26 ff.), three years after his conversion, 
Gal. 1. 18. From Jerusalem he makes his escape to Tarsus (ix. 29, 30).— 
Arr. Dion. 39-43, v.c. 792-796. The churches throughout Palestine have 
peace and prosperity (ix. 31); Peter makes a general journey of visitation (ix. 
32), labours at Lydda and Joppa (ix. 32-43), converts Cornelius at Caesarea 
(x. 1-48), and returns to Jerusalem, where he justifies himself (xi. 1-18). 
Christianity is preached in Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, and in that eity 
even to the Gentiles, on which account Barnabas is sent thither, who fetches 
Paul from Tarsus, and remains with him for one year in Antioch (xi. 19-26). 
In this year (43) Agabus predicts a general famine (xi. 27, 28).—AER. Dron. 
44, u.c. 797. After the execution of the elder James, Peter is imprisoned 
without result by Agrippa L., who dies in August 44 (xii. 1-23). In the fourth 
year of the reign of Claudius occurs the famine in Judaea (see on xi. 28), 
on account of which Paul (according to Acts, but not according to Gal. ii. 
1) makes his second journey to Jerusalem (with Barnabas), whence he returns 
to Antioch (xi. 29, 30, and see on xii. 25).—AER. Dion. 45-51, v.c. 798-804. 
In this period occurs the jirst missionary journey of the apostle with Bar- 
nabas (xiii. and xiv.), the duration of which is not indicated. Having 
returned to Antioch, Paul and Barnabas remain there ypovov ovk dAiyov (xiv. 
28).—AER. Dion. 52, v.c. 805. The third journey of Paul to Jerusalem 
(with Barnabas) to the apostolic congress (xv. 1-29), according to Gal. ii. 1, 
fourteen years after the first journey. Having returned to Antioch, Paul 
and Barnabas separate, and Paul with Silas commences his second missionary 
journey (Acts xv. 30-41).—AER. Dron. 53, 54, u.c. 806, 807. Continuation 
of this missionary journey through Lycaonia, Phrygia, and Galatia ; crossing 
‚From Troas to Macedonia ; journey to Athens and Corinth, where Pual met 
with Aquila banished in the year 52 by the edict of Claudius from Rome, and 
remained there more (see on xviii. 11) than a year and a half (xvi. 1-xviil. 
18).—AeEr. Dron. 55, v.c. 808. From Corinth Paul journeys to Ephesus, 
and thence by Caesarea to Jerusalem for the fourth time (xvii. 20-22), from 
which, without staying, he returns to Antioch (xviii. 22), and thus closes his 
second missionary journey. He tarries there xpövov rıva (xvill. 23), and then 
commences his third missionary journey through Galatia and Phrygia (xviii. 
23), during which time Apollos is first at Ephesus (xviii. 24 ff.) and then 
at Corinth (xix. 1).—A&r. Dion. 56-58, v.c. 809-811. Paul arrives on this 


1 With this also agrees the number of the assumed for the coinage. The circumstance 


year AP of a Damascene coin of King Aretas, 
described by Eckhel and Mionnet, namely, in 
so far as that number (101) is to be reckoned 
according to the Pompeian era commencing 
with 690 u.c.,—and this is at any rate the most 
probable,—whence the year 38 may be safely 


that there are extant Damascene coins of 
Augustus and Tiberius, and also of Nero, but 
none of Caligula and Claudius (see Eckhel, I. 
3, p. 330f.), is unsatisfactory as evidence of 
a longer continuance of the city under the 
power of Aretas, and may be accidental. 


CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY. Ir 


journey at Ephesus (xix. 1), where he labours for not quite three years (see on 
xix. 10). After the tumult of Demetrius (xix. 24-40) he journeys to 
Macedonia and Greece, and tarries there three months (xx. 1, 2).—Aer. 
Dion. 59, v.c. 812. Having returned in the spring from Greece to 
Macedonia (xx. 3), Paul sails after Easter from Philippi to Troas (xx. 6), and 
from Assos by way of Miletus (xx. 13-38), and Tyre (xxi. 1-6) to Ptolemais 
(xxi. 7), thence he journeys by Caesarea (xxi. 8-14) to Jerusalem forthe fifth 
and last time (xxi. 15-17). Arriving shortly before Pentecost (xx. 16), he is 
after some days (xxi. 18-33) arrested and then sent to Felix at Caesarea (xxiii. 
23-35).—ArER. Dion. 60, 61, v.c. 813, 814. Paul remains a prisoner in 
Caesarea for two years (from the summer of 59 to the summer of 61) until 
the departure of Felix, who leaves him as a prisoner to his successor Festus 
(xxiv. 27). Festus, after fruitless discussions (xxv., xxvi.), sends the apostle, 
who had appealed to Caesar, to Rome in the autumn (xxvii. 9), on which 
journey he winters at Malta (xxviii. 11).—That Felix had retired from 
his procuratorship before the year 62, is evident from Joseph. Antt. xx. 
8. 9, according to which this retirement occurred while Pallas, the brother 
of Felix, was still a favourite of Nero, and while Burrus, the praefectus 
praetorio, was still living ; but, according to Tac. Ann. xiv. 65, Pallas was 
poisoned by Nero in the year 62, and Burrus died in an early month of the 
same year (Anger, de temp. rat. p. 101). See also Ewald, p. 52 ff. Further, 
that the retirement of Felix took place after the year 60," is highly probable 
from Joseph. Vit. § 3, and from Antt. xx. 8.11. In the first passage 
Josephus informs us that he had journeyed to Rome wer’ eixoorov Kai Exrov 
éviavrov of his life, in order to release certain priests whom Felix, during 
his (consequently then elapsed) procuratorship (xa9’ öv xpövov biAg TiS 
’Iovdaias Emerpörevev), had sent as prisoners thither. Now, as Josephus was 
born (Vit. § 1) in the first year of Caligula (7.e. in the year from 16th March 
37 to 16th March 38), and so the completion of his 26th year fell in the 
year from 16th March 63 to 16th March 64, that journey to Rome is to 
be placed in the year 63,” for the sea was closed in the winter months until 
the beginning of March (Veget. de re milit. iv. 39.) If, then, Felix had 
retired as early as the year 60, Josephus would only have interested himself 
for his unfortunate friends three years after the removal of the hated gov- 
ernor,—a long postponement of their rescue, which would be quite inex- 


born between 13th September 87 and 16th 
March 38, and therefore the above journey is 


1 Not in the year 58, as Lehmann (in the 
Stud. und Krit. 1858, p. 322 ff.) endeavours to 


establish, but without considering the pas- 
sage in Joseph. Vita3. See, besides, in 
opposition to Lehmann, Wieseler on Gal. p. 
583 f. » 

2 Wieseler, p. 98, following Clinton, Anger, 
and others, has defended the year 64. He 
appeals especially to a more exact deter- 
mination of the age of Josephus, which is to 
be got from Anti. xx. 11. 3, where Josephus 
makes his 56th year coincide with the 13th 
year of Domitian (13th September 93 to 13th 
September 94). Accordingly, Josephus was 


to be referred not to the year 63, but, as he 
would not have entered upon it in the 
autumn, only to the year 64. But this proof 
is not convincing, as we are at all events 
entitled to seek the strictly exact statement 
of the birth of Josephus in the Vita, § 1 16 
March 37 to 16th March 38), and are not, by 
the approximate parallelism of An#/. xx. 11. 
2, justified in excluding the period from 16th 
March to 13th September, 37. Even if Jose- 
phus were bornin March 37, his 56th year 
would still fallin the 13th year of Domitian, 


18 INTRODUCTION. 


plicable. But if Felix resigned his government in the year 61,' it was 
natural that Josephus should first wait the result of the complaint of the 
Jews of Caesarea to the emperor against Felix (Joseph. Antt. xx. 8, 10); 
and then, when the unexpected news of the acquittal of the procurator 
came, should, immediately after the opening of the navigation in the year 
63, make his journey to Rome, in order to release his friends the priests. 
Further, according to Joseph. Antt. xx. 8. 11, about the time of the 
entrance of Festus on office (kata röv kaıpdv roörov), Poppaea, the mistress 
of Nero, was already his wife (yvv7,) which she became according to Tac. 
Ann. xiv. 59, Suet. Wer. 35, only in May of the year 62 (see Anger, l.c. pp. 
101, 103). Now, if Festus had become already procurator in the year 60, 
we must either ascribe to the expression xatd Tov katpdv roürov an undue 
indefiniteness, extending even to inaccuracy, or in an equally arbitrary 
manner understand yvv7 proleptically (Anger, Stölting), or as uxor injusta 
(Wieseler), which, precisely in reference to the twofold relation of Poppaea 
as the emperor’s mistress and the emperor's wife, would appear unwar- 
ranted in the case of a historian who was recording the history of his 
own time. But if Festus became governor only in the summer of 61, there 
remains for Töv kaıpöv roürov a space of not quite one year, which, with the 
not sharply definite «ard «.7.4., cannot occasion any difficulty. The ob- 
jection urged by Anger, p. 100, and Wieseler, p. 86, on Gal. p. 584 f., 
and in Herzog’s Eneykl. XXI. p. 557, after Pearson and Schrader, against 
the year 61, from Acts xxviii. 16,—namely, that the singular 7@ orparoredapxn 
refers to Burrus (who died in the spring of 62) as the sole praefectus 
praetorii at the period of the arrival of the apostle at Rome, for before 
and after his prefecture there were two prefects,—is untenable, because 
the singular in the sense of : the praefectus praetorii concerned (to whom 
the prisoners were delivered up), is quite in place. The other reasons 
against the year 61, taken from the period of office of Festus and Albinus, 
the successors of Felix (Anger, p. 101 ff. ; Wieseler, p. 89 ff.), involve too 
much uncertainty to be decisive for the year 60. For although the en- 
trance of Albinus upon office is not to be put later than the beginning of 
October 62 (see Anger, /.c.), yet the building (completion) of the house of 
Agrippa, mentioned by Joseph. Antt. xx. 8. 11, ix. 1, as nearly contem- 
poraneous with the entrance of Festus on office, and the erection of the 
wall by the Jews over against it (to prevent the view of the temple), as 
well as the complaint occasioned thereby at Rome, might very easily have 
occurred from the summer of 61 to the autumn of 62; and against the 
brief duration of the high-priesthood of Kabi, scarcely exceeding a month 
on this supposition (Anger, p. 105 f.), the history of that period of rapid 
dissolution in the unhappy nation raises no valid objection at all.—Aer. 
Dion. 63, 64, v.c. 815-817. Paul arrives in the spring of 62 at Rome 
(xxvii. 11, 16), where he remains two years (xxviii. 30), that is, until the 
spring of 64, in further captivity. Thus far the Acts of the Apostles.— 
On the disputed point of a second imprisonment, see on Rom. Introd. p. 
15 ff. 


1 See also Laurent, neutest. Studien, p. 84 ff. 


AUTHORITIES FOR CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE. 19 


Remark 1.—The great conflagration of Rome under Nero broke out on 19th 
July 64 (Tac. Ann. xv. 41), whereupon commenced the persecution of the 
Christians (Tac. Ann. xv. 44). At the same time the abandoned Gessius Florus 
(64-66), the Nero of the Holy Land, the successor of the wretched Albinus, 
made havoc in Judaea, 

Remark 2.—The Book of Acts embraces the period from a.p. 31 to a.p. 
64, in which there reigned as Roman emperors: (1) Tiberius (from 19th August 
14), until 16th March 37; (2) Caligula, until 24th January 41; (3) Claudius, 
until 15th October 54 ; (4) Nero (until 9th June 68). 

4 


AUTHORITIES TO WHICH REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE IN THE 
FOLLOWING CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE. 


Euseb. Chronicon in Mai nova Collect. VIII. p. 374 ff.—Hieron. Chronic. and 
de vir. ill. 5.—Chronicon paschale, ed. Dindorf.—Baronii Annal. ecclesiast. Rom. 
1588, and later editions.—Petavius, de doctrina tempor. Par. 1627, in his Opp. 
Amst. 1640.—Cappelli hist. apostolica illustr. Genev. 1634, and later editions. 
—Usserii Annal. V. et N. T. Lond. 1650, and later editions.—Fried. Spanheim 
(the son of Fried. Spanh.), de convers. Paulinae epocha fixa, in his Opp. Lugd. 
Bat. 1701, III. p. 311 ff., and his Hist. Eccl. N. T. in his Opp. I. p. 534 ff.— 
Pearson, Lection. in priora Act. capita, and Annales Paulin. and in his Opp. 
posthuma, ed. Dodwell, Lond. 1688.—Tillemont, Mémoires pour servir a 
Vhistoire ecclés. Par. 1693, Bruxell. 1694.—Basnage, Annal. politico-eccles. 
Roterod. 1706, I. p. 403 ff.—J. A. Bengel, ordo tempor. Stuttg. 1741, third edi- 
tion, 1770.—Michaelis, Einleit. in d. göttl. Schr. d. N. B. II. § 169.—Vogel, üb. 
chronol. Standpunkte in d. Lebensgesch. Pauli, in Gabler’s Journ. für auserles. 
theol. Lit. 1805, p. 229 ff.—Heinrich’s Prolegom. p. 45 ff.—The Introductions 
of Hug, Eichhorn, and Bertholdt.—Siiskind, neuer Versuch über chronol. Stand- 
punkte f. d. Ap. Gesch. u. f. d. Leben Jesu in Bengel’s Arch. I. 1, p. 156 ff., 2, 
p. 297 ff. Comp. the corrections in Vermischte Aufsätze meist theol. Inhalts, 
ed. C. F. Siskind, Stuttg. 1831.—J. E. Chr. Schmidt, Chronol. d. Ap. Gesch. 
in Keil’s and Tzschirner’s Annal, III. p. 128 ff.—Kuinoel, Prolegom. § 7.— 
Winer, Realwörterb. ed. 3, 1848.—De Wette, Einl. § 118.—Schrader, Der Ap. 
Paulus, I. Lpz. 1830.—Hemsen, Der Ap. Paulus, ed. Lücke, Gott. 1830 (agrees 
with Hug).—Koehler, üb. d. Abfassungszeit d. epistol. Schriften im N. T. u. d. 
Apokalypse, Lpz. 1830. Comp. the corrections in Annalen der gesammten Theol. 
Jun. 1832, p. 233 ff. (in Koehler’s review of Schott’s Erörterung, ete.).- -Feil- 
moser, Einl. p. 308 ff.—Schott, Isag. § 48. Comp. the corrections in Erörterung 
einig. wicht. chronol. Punkte in d. Lebensgesch. d. Ap. Paulus, Jen. 1832. — 
Wurm, üb. d. Zeitbestimmungen im Leben d. Ap. Paulus in the Tüb. Zeitschr. f. 
Theol. 1833, pp. 1 ff., 261 ff.—Olshausen, bibl. Kommentar. II.—Anger, de tempor. 
in Act. ap. ratione, Lpz. 1833.—Wieseler, Chronologie d. apost. Zeitalt. Gött. 1848, 
and Kommentar z. Br. an d. Gal. Gött. 1859, Exeurs. p. 553 ff. ; also in Her- 
zog’s Eneykl. XXI. p. 552 ff.—Ewald, Gesch. d, apost. Zeitalt. ed. 3, 1868.—See 
also Göschen, Bemerkungen zur Chronol. d. N. T. in the Stud. u. Krit. 1831, p. 
701 ff.—Sanclemente, De vulgaris aerae emendatione, Rom. 1793.—Ideler, 
Handb. d. Chronol. II. p. 366 ff. 


. 20 INTRODUCTION. 


SYNOPSIS OF THE DATES FIXED 



























a 
£ =) h = = es - : 
5 z a . m 2 
El 3) 22138 38.2 (SSS) Sa 
Bla) 2S Eee l2äsa § |S|5 
22 | 82/2 |20ls|: lsleiale a | ao | & | on 
S| oO as SO] 12) Ss |2|=|8|9| 5 oo | vo | 38 
A» oh A AW) on HH AA = r>im| a 
pa | |e a Bae ee ee 
Ascension of Christ, . . 31! |33) 32 31 32 '3133'33| 33 |33'33/33'80| 3% | 31 | 33 | 31? 


Stephen's martyrdom, 33 or34 


co 
> 
co 
ry 
co 
-t 
co 
co 
co 
@ 
~ 


34 33 37 30 


I 


a. 
Claud | 36? 
1% 


a. 
Paul’s conversion, . » =» = ..| 33 veut 34 33 3935| 40 |35/24/37/31| 372 | 83?) 37? | 35 


















































a. 
peer HOEY ee Cland. 37 |86/42'88| 43 (88)87/40/88|.. |867| 40 38 
a. 
Paul’s arrival at Antioch, a Salven Ca 41 |40 42/43) 43? 4243/40 39 42? 
\ about 43 
Death of James,. .. . 44 42 '41 4144 44 44|44 42 44 or 
| 44 
4 
Maui 56 6 o oe 44) 41 44 Aa 42 '42 4444| 44 144 4414244] 44 or 
46? 
5 41 
ee un le | 46 | 42 arlasaı 44 wanauzto| 44 | 44 | 44 | 44 
a. | 44| alas 44/44/45 45 44 
al 8 first HIRE a ) Claud.| to 42toto .. |tojtojto to) .. | to 
De | v. | 47 | lasla6 7\46147 46 47? 
Paul’s third journey to Je- 
rusalem, to the une 49 494652 53 1495115047] .. |472|47?| 52 
Council, c 52 
Paul commences his end | 
missionary journey,. . = 49 49/4653) .. 50 5150 47 53 
: 3 aie 49 
ae nn 49| .. | 49 494954) .. atosı... dar [oar] 52 
Paul arrives at Corinth, 58) sales 50 504954 54? |52)52/51/48) 54? | 52?) 52 | 53 
Paul’s fourth journey to Je- 52 
rusalem (a2.Caesarea), and setae Caos, 5251156 54? 154545849] .. | 54? | 54 | 55 
third missionary journey, 55 Ä 
\ 53 525156, 56 1541545350 56 
Paul's abode at Ephesus, 55-584 |..| .. | .. | to tototo to to toito to } to 
| ee ae 59| 58 [57157155 52 58 
Paul’s fifth jouruey to Jeru- i | 
salem, and imprisonment, 10} a = 56 I ca 59 |58/58'56.53; 60 |57?| 60 | 59 
Paul’s removal from Caes- 55. under lealeeleo | | 2! 62 | 61 
area to Rome, . 61% |° 57 | Nero. 56 2 56 62) 60 16016015955] 62 | 59?) 62 | 6 
Bis Hat Ail Pea ewe 57 |57/57.63| 61 (61/61/60 56) 63 | 60 | 63 | 62 
a es nn AlNera Er to tototo to |to to to to} to to | to | to 
A er IV. 59 59159 53 [63 63 62 58| 65 | 62 | 65 | 64 





1 Lehmann (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 312 ff.) furnishes from this point onward the follow. 
ing dates :—Second journey to Jerusalem, 44 ; first missionary journey, 45 and 46 ; apostolic 
couneil, 47; second missionary journey, 48,—in 49 Paul arrives at Corinth ; fourth journey to 
Jerusalem, 51; third missionary journey, 52, during which he remains at Ephesus from the 
autumn of 52 until 54, and in 55 proceeds to Macedonia and Greece; fifth journey to Jerusalem, 
and imprisonment, 56; removal from Caesarea to Rome, 58; imprisonment in Rome, 59 to 61.— 
These dates chiefly Benen on the assumption that Felix had been recalled as early as the year 
58.—Laurent, neutest. Stud. p. 94 f£., fixes, with me, on the year 61 as that of the departure of 
Felix and the voyaze of the apostle.—Gerlach (Statthalter in Syrien und Judäa, $ 14) does not 





CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE. — 21 


BY DIFFERENT CHRONOLOGISTS. 




































































= | 
a ; ß 3 $ AR | 
ans); |; |. | 1235| 
° ° [=] 3 2 En o 3 @|o} Vs 7 = Bil emt | 
one! Pes) e. a pecs se fo be le & is 
Slelei/ai/a\8/% | 2 (sisi 2)5 |e) & gal & 
Bopmlalo|M |Fla|a \|Mie| 2 | & IS| < jas] E 
32 32 33 | 30? 35 | 36 1831 33 83 |. 81 || oo 
37 | 
ur: 82 or | 38%? 85 | 36 N 37 89? |38 
38 | 
37 7 35 | 
or |40| 82 | 41 40 |388?| or 39 | 87 138 37 41 | 385] 88 | or] 40 |s8 
38 38 38 
40 did 40 38 
or |43| 35 | not | 43 | 41! or 42 | 40 |38) 40 | 43 | 38] 41 | or| 4g | 
41 occur. 41 | 41 | 
43 43 
42 | 44 we os ae ae or 43, eat lal wae as 41 | or 44| .. 44 | 
44 or 45? 
43 43 43 
HAuNLOn |) 7. da or | 4 | 44 4 |4|..| 44 En or or 44 
44 44 44 
44 44 
or | 44) 47? | .. 4.\4| .. Pa paced) cee TARA | or 45 45 
45 or 46? 
44 44 
44 46 44 4 | 45] or 44 | 41 4 44 45 | 44 | or 45| 44] 45 
45 lor 46? 
44 45 to |..t0 48 
Cyn In. alc: Coy co | oe ae st to |45?|..| to ate 49 about) .. to 
46 46 48 47 
50 49 Re 
52 |52?| 47? | 55 52 |51 | or 47 | 51 152) or 46 | 52 | 51 | 52 about’. 
51 50 50 
51 
Bee. |..4 or | 47 | tela! .. |». |52| 52. .., [about 
52 | 50 
b : none ne not 51 
ee | 52 |52| ‚© | 40 | 82.158] 52 beforel .. | or | .. | 52 
45 54 and 49 52 
2 2 
52 52 
about! 551 4g | 55? | 52 al | 49 | 52\58| or | 49 |58| 52 |.. | 52 
53 | | 53 
53 54 
56 |55 | 50 .. |Caes.| 54 | or 51 | 54 |55| ge) 51 | 55 | 54 | 56] 54 
= S. 
57 |55 | 50 55 | 54 to 55 54 54 | 56 | 54 54 
to |to | to ve se to | or | 51 ff. 57 ‚to, to to jand to =. to 
59 | 58] 52 57 | 55 ff. | 218717 66. |) 56) 1870| 57 7 
58 
60 |58| 53 59 5% | 58 es 59 | 58 58) 59 58 | 60] 58 | 60! 58 
A 5 
| 60 
62 | 60] 55 61 59 |60 | or | 61 | 60 60) 61 60 | 62} 60 | 62! 60 
| 61 | 
63 | 61 62 60 | 61 2 62 | 61 61 62 | 61 | 63| 61 | 63/ 61 
to to oe to to to to to to to to to to to to to 
65 | 63 64 62 63 | 64 | 64 | 63 63 64 68 | 65| 63 | 65| 64 |6 
! I | 
ee enc rr ee wm cn ee Er er ne me ne ee me en ee 


enter on the chronological question, but fixes on the year 60 or 61.—Holtzmann, Judenth. u. 
Christenth. p. 547 ff., agrees in essential points with our dates.—Stilting, Beitr. z. Eweges. d. 
Paul. Br. 1869, starting from the assumption that the fourteen years in Gal. ii. 1 are to be 
reckoned from the conversion to the composition of the Epistle, and that so likewise the four- 
teen years in 2 Cor. xii. 2 are to be determined, fixes for the conversion of Paul the year 40; for 
the first journey to Jerusalem, 43 (for the second, 45) ; for the third, 49; for the second mis- 
sionary journey to Corinth, 50-52 ; for the fourth journey to Jerusalem, 52; for the arrest, 56; 
for the two years’ imprisonment, 59 to 61. 


22 INTRODUCTION. . 


NOTE BY AMERICAN EDITOR. 
(®) 

Although the author contends strongly for the date he assigns for the 
ascension, that the feast referred to in John v. 1 was not the Passover, but 
the feast of Purim, and hence our Lord’s public ministry extended only over 
a period of a little more than two years, the exact chronology of the Acts is 
still an unsettled question. The great diversity in the chronological -table 
furnished by him is proof of this. “The exact number of Passovers from 
the baptism to the crucifixion of Christ, and the length of our Lord’s ministry, 
are points on which there is much difference of opinion. For myself I can 
see no better view than the old one, that our Lord’s ministry lasted three 
years.i  (diyle.) 

“What this feast was is, in all probability, a question which, though inter- 
esting and important in settling the length of our Lord’s ministry, will never 
receive a final answer.” ‘The data are clearly insufficient to decide convin- 
cingly how long Christ publicly taught on earth, nor shall we ever be able to 
attain any certainty on that deeply interesting question.” (Farrar, Ex. VIIL., 
Life of Christ.) 

Dr. Robinson in his Harmony of the Gospels, and Dr. McDonald, of Prince- 
ton, in his Life and Writings of John, both consider the Passover to be re- 
ferred to in John v. 1—as does also Dr. Jacobus in his Notes. 

Hackett says : ‘“ The chronology of the Acts is attended with uncertainties 
which no efforts of critical labor have been able to remove.” And he gives 
A.D, 33 as the probable date of the ascension. In this opinion Lewin and 
Canon Cooke concur, as does also Dr. P. J. Gloag in the introduction to his 
excellent commentary. Canon Farrar, in Excursus X. appended to his Life 
and Work of St. Paul, says: ‘‘How widely different have been the schemes 
adopted by different chronologists, may be seen from the subjoined table, 
founded on that given by Meyer.” 

“This important book forms the grand connecting link of the Gospels with 
the Epistles, being a sort of appendix to the former, and an introduction to 
the latter, and is therefore indispensably necessary to a right understanding of 
both.’’ (Bloomfield. ) 

“Any view which attributes wlterior design to the writer beyond that of faith- 
fully recording such facts as seemed important in the history of the Gospel, 
is, I am persuaded, mistaken. Many ends are answered by the book in the 
course of this narration, but they are the designs of Providence, not the studied 
purposes of the writer.” (Alford.) 

“The purpose of the writer was, evidently, to narrate the work of Christ con- 
tinued after his ascension, and wrought through the Holy Spirit, and to fur- 
nish his readers with an account of how Christianity, after the death of its 
Founder, was preserved, established, and in so short a time communicated to 
so many nations.” (Denton.) 

The evidential value of the book is very great when considered in relation 
to the Gospels, the Epistles of Paul, and the facts of external history ; and its 
bearing on the organization, worship, mission work, and future history of the 
Church is most obvious and important. (See Introductions by Plumptre and by 
Howson.) 


CRITICAL NOTES. 23 


IIpagsıs tév anootoAwv. 


B, Lachm. Tisch. have mpafeıs ürooröAwv. So also Born. Later enlarge- 
ments of the title in codd.: Aovxa evayyeAuorod mpaseıs amooröAwv, al. ai 
rpäseıs TOV dyiov amootöAwv. Peculiar to D ; mpasis anooröAov. N has merely 
modseıs, but at the close mpdfers anooroAwv.— The codex D is particularly rich in 
additions, emendations, and the like, which Bornemann has recently defended 
as the original text. Matth. ed. min. p. 1 well remarks: ‘Hic liber (the 
Book of Acts) in re critica est difficillimus et impeditissimus, quod multa in eo 
turbata sunt. Sed corruptiones versionum Syrarum, Bedae et scribae codicis 
D omnem modum excedunt.” ‘Tisch. justly calls the proceeding of Borne- 
mann, ‘‘monstruosam quandam ac perversam novitatem” (E). 


CHAPTER I. 2 ’ 


. 


Ver. 4. ovvarılöouevos] min. Euseb. Epiph. have ovvavartouevos. Recom- 
mended by Wetst. and Griesb. D has ovvadioxduevos per’ aitov. Both are 
ineptly explanatory alterations. — Ver. 5. The order : &v zvevu. Barr. dyiv, adopted 
by Lachm., is not sufficiently attested by B N* against A C E min. vss. Or. al. — 
Ver. 6. &myporwv] Lachm. Tisch. read 7pdrwv, according to A B C* 8, the weight 
of which, considering the frequency of both words in Luke, prevails. — Ver! 8. 
pot] Lachm. Tisch. Bornem. read ov, decisively attested by A B C D & Or, — 
Instead of «on, Elz. Griesb. Scholz read év racy. But év is wanting in A C* 
D min. Copt. Sahid. Or. Hilar. Inserted in accordance with the preceding. — 
Ver. 10. éo8771 Aevap] A BC 8 min. Syr. Copt. Arm. Vulg. Eus. have &odyseoı 
Aevxais. Adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. The Rec. is the usual expression. 
Comp. on Luke xxiv. 4. — Ver. 13. Lachm. Tisch. Bornem. have the order 
’Iodvuns k. ’IakwBos, which is supported by A B C D®& min. vss., also Vulg. 
and Fathers. The Rec. is according to Luke vi. 14. — Ver. 14. After xpocevy7 
Elz. has kat 7H denoeı, which, on decisive testimony, has been omitted by 
modern critics since Griesbach. A strengthening addition. — Ver. 15. uabnrar] 
A B C* 8 min. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. Aug. have adeAgov : recom- 
mended by Griesb., and rightly adopted by Lach. and Tisch. ; the Rec. is an 
interpretation of dde/9., here occurring for the first time in Acts, in the sense 
of uaßnr. — Ver. 16. raurmv is wanting in A B C* 8 min. and several vss. and 
Fathers. Deleted by Lachm. But the omission occurred because no express 
passage of Scripture immediately follows. — Ver 17. ovv] Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. 
Tisch. Born. read év according to decisive testimony ; ovv is an interpretation. 
— Ver. 19. ’AxeAdaué] There are different modes of writing this word in the 
critical authorities and witnesses. Lachm. and Tisch. read ‘Axe2dauay accord- 
ing to A B; Born. ‘AceAdauay according to D ; N has ‘AyeA9audy. — Ver. 20. 
AaBo:.] Lachm. Tisch. and Born. read Aa8érw according to A BC D® Eus. 
Chrys. ; 2é30: was introduced from the LXX. — Ver. 24. dv &£eA. Ex tout. Tov dvo 
éva] Elz. has éx tovr. röv dbo éva by ééeA., in opposition to greatly preponderat- 


24 CHAP. I., 1-3. 


ing testimony. A transposition for the sake of perspicuity. — Ver. 25. röv xAjpov} 
A BC* D (rör. tov) Copt. Sahid. Vulg. Cant. Procop. Aug. read rdv tézov. 
Adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. (rörov röv). Rightly ; the Ree. is a gloss 
according to ver. 17.—a@’ 75] Elz. Scholz read é 75. The former has prepon- 
derating testimony. — Ver 26. aitév] AB C D** N min. vss. have adrois. So 
Lachm. and Tisch. The dative not being understood gave place to the geni- 
tive. Others left out the pronoun entirely (Syr. Erp.). 


Ver. 1. Tov piv mpörov Aöyov Eroımo.] Luke calls his Gospel the first history, 
inasmuch as he is now about to compose a second. pdros, in the sense of 
ppotepos. See on Johni. 15. Adyos, narrative, history, or the like, what is 
contained in a book.’ As to rorsiv used of mental products, comp. Plat. 
Phaed. p. 61 B: roısiv pifiovs, aad’ ob Adyovs. Hence Aoyomovös = ioropırös.? 
pév, without a subsequent de. Luke has broken off the construction. 
Instead of continuing after ver. 2 somewhat as follows: ‘‘ but this devrepos 
Aoyos is to contain the further course of events after the Ascension,’’ which 
thought he had before his mind in the pév, ver. 1,—he allows himself 
to be led by the mention of the apostles in the protasis to suppress the 
apodosis, and to pass on at once to the commencement of the history 
itself. — wep) mdévrwv| a popular expression of completeness, and therefore 
not to be pressed. — dv jpéaro «.r.A.] dv is attracted, equivalent to a; and, 
setting aside the erroneous assertion that jpéatc rowsiv is equivalent to 
eroinoe (Grotius, Calovius, Valckenaer, Kuinoel), it is usually explained : 
‘‘what Jesus began to do and to teach (and continued) until the day,’ ete., 
as if Luke had written : bv aptduevos ’Inooös Eroimoe x. édidakev aype K.T.A. 
Comp. xi. 4.4 But Luke has not so written, and it is arbitrary thus to 
explain his words. Baumgarten, after Olshausen and Schneckenburger, 
has maintained that 7p&aro denotes the whole work of Jesus up to His as- 
cension as initial and preparatory, so that this second book is conceived as 
the continuation of that doing and teaching which was only begun by Jesus 
up to His ascension ; as if Luke had written jpato moıwv Te Kai diddcKwv.® 
In point of fact, jpéaro is inserted according to the very frequent custom 
of the Synoptists, by which that which is done or said is in a vivid and 
graphic manner denoted according to its moment of commencement. It thus 
here serves to recall to the recollection from the Gospel all the several 
incidents and events up to the ascension, in which Jesus had appeared as 
doer and teacher. The reader is supposed mentally to realize from the 
Gospel all the scenes in which he has seen Jesus come forward as acting and 


1§0 in Xen. Ages. 10. 8, Arad. iii. 1. 1, and 
frequently. See also Schweigh. Lew. Herod. 
II. p. 76; Creuzer Symbol. I. p. 44 ff. 

2 Pearson, ad Mover. p. 244. 

3 Comp. Winer, p. 535 (E. T. 720); Buttm. 
neut. Gr. p. 313 (E. T. 365); Kühner, ad Xen. 
Anab.i.2.1; Baeuml. Partik. p. 163 f. 

* Plat. Legg. vii. p. 807 D; Xen, Anab. vi. 
4.1; Lucian, Somm. 15; also Luke xviii. 5, 
xxiv. 27, 47; Acts 1. 22, viii. 35, x. 37. So also 


Winer, p. 577 (E. T. 775) ; Buttm. p. 320 (E. 
T. 374): Lekebusch, p. 202 f. So also in 
substance Hackett, Commentary on the Orig- 
anal Text of the Acts of the Apostles, Boston, 
1858. ed 2. 

5 As Xen. Cyr. vill. 8. 2: dp&owar dıdackwr, 
I shall begin my teaching, Plat. Theaet. p. 
187 A, Mencx. p. 237 A; comp. Krüger, § 56. 
BALL, 


REFERENCE TO THE GOSPEL. 25 


teaching,—a beginning of the Lord, which occurred in the most various 
instances and varied ways up to the day of His ascent. The emphasis, 
moreover, lies on toveiv te kai didaoxecv, which comprehends the contents of 
the Gospel.‘ It may, consequently, be paraphrased somewhat thus: ‘* The 
Jirst narrative I have composed of all that, by which Jesus exhibited His activity 
in doing and teaching during His earthly life wp to His ascension.’?  mousın 
precedes, comp. Luke xxiv. 19, because it was primarily the épya of Jesus 
that demonstrated His Messiahship, John x. 38; Acts x. 38. 

Ver. 2. Until the day on which He was taken up, after that He had com- 
missioned by means of the Holy Spirit the apostles whom He had chosen, belong- 
ing to dv jpiato k.r.A.— äypı 75 nuöpas] a usual attraction, but to be ex- 
plained as in ver. 22; Luke i. 20, xvii. 27; Matt. xxiv. 38. — Evreilduevos] 
refers neither merely to the baptismal command, Matt. xxviii., nor merely to 
the injunction in ver. 4; but is to be left as general: having given them 
charges, ‘‘ut facere solent, qui ab amicis, vel etiam ex hoc mundo disce- 
dunt,’’ Beza. — did rveiu. dyiov] belongs to évreA. trois amoor.: by means of 
the Holy Spirit, of which He was possessor (Luke iv. 1, xiv. 18; John iii. 
34, xx. 22), and by virtue of which He worked, as in general, so specially 
as regards His disciples (ix. 55). Yet it is not to be explained as: by com- 
munication of the Spirit (comp. Bengel), since this is not promised till after- 
wards ; noryet as: quae agere deberent per Spir. 8. (Grot.), which the words 
cannot bear. Others? connect dıa rveuu. dy. with ots &$eA&faro, quos per Sp. 
S. elegerat. But there thus would result a hyperbaton which, without any 
certain example in the N. T.,* would put a strong emphasis and yet without 
any warrant in the context, on did mv. dyiov. — ods éeAée.] is added with 
design and emphasis ; it is the significant premiss to évreiAdu. «.r.A. (whom 
He had chosen to Himself) ; for the earlier éxAoyn on the part of Jesus was a 
necessary preliminary to their receiving the évroay did mv, dy. — aveajoln| 
Luke ix. 51, xxiv. 51 (Elz.). \ 

Ver. 3. Ois kai] to whom also. To the foregoing ods éfeAés., namely, there 
is attached a corresponding incident, through which the new intercourse, 
in which the évrecAduevos x.7.A. took place, is now set forth. —uerü ro 
radeiv aitév| includes in it the death as the immediate result of the 
suffering (iii. 18, xvii. 3, xxvi. 23; Heb. xiii. 12).— dv’ quép. reocapar. | 
He,showed Himself to them throughout forty days, (F) not continuously, but 
From time to time, which is sufficiently indicated as well known by the 
preceding év 7oAA, rerunpioıs. — ra wept 77S Bao. r. Oeoö] speaking to them 
that which related to the Messiah’s kingdom, which He would erect. The 
Catholics have taken occasion hence to assume that Jesus at this stage 
gave instructions concerning the hierarchy, the seven sacraments, and 
the like.—As to the variation of the narrative of the forty days from 
the narrative given in the Gospel, see on Luke xxiv. 50 f. This diversity 


1 Comp. Papias in Ens. iii. 39. 3 Winer, p. 517 (E. T. 696); Buttm. newt. 
2Syr. Ar. Aeth. Cyril, Augustine, Beza, Gr. p. 333 (E. T. 388). 
Scaliger, Heumann, Kypke, Michaelis, Ro- 4 Plat. Apol. p. 19 D, al. ; Dissen, ad Dem. 


senmiiller, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Olshausen,de decor. p. 177 f. ; and see on Rom. svi. <7, 
Wette. 


. 


26 CHAP. I., 4-11. 


presupposes that a not inconsiderable interval occurred between the 
composition of the Gospel and that of Acts, during which the tradition 
of the forty days was formed or at least acquired currency. The purposely 
chosen örravöuevos conspiciendum se praebens' corresponds to the changed 
corporeality of the Risen One (comp. the remark subjoined to Luke xxiv. 
51), but does not serve in the least degree to remove that discrepancy 
(in opposition to Baumgarten, p. 12), as if it presupposed that Jesus, on 
occasion of every appearance, quitted ‘the sphere of invisibility.’’ 
Comp. the 6947 in Luke xxiv. 24; 1 Cor. xv. 5 ff.; comp. with John 
xx. 17; Acts 1. 21 f., x. 41; Luke xxiv. 427. 

Ver. 4. To the general description of the forty days’ intercourse is 
now added by the simple «ai, and, in particular, the description of the 
two last interviews, ver. 4 f. and ver. 6. ff., after which the avei7g0n 
took place, ver. 9. — cvvadrlou. mapnyy. avroıs] while He ate with them, He 
commanded them. ovvarılöu. 1s thus correctly understood by the vss. 
(Vulg.: convescens), Chrysostom (rpareins koıwovov), Theophylact, Oecume- 
nius, Jerome, Beda, and others, including Casaubon. — cuvadicectar (prop- 
erly, to eat salt with one) in the sense of eating together, is found in 
a Greek translator of Ps. cxli. 4, where ovvaticbo (LXX.: ovvdvdcw) 
corresponds to the Hebrew DMR, also in Clem. Hom. 6, and Maneth. v. 
339. Asto the thing itself, comp. on x. 41. Usually the word is de- 
rived from ovvaridev, to assemble.” It would then have to be rendered ; 
when He assembled with them.” But against this it is decisive that the 
sense: when He had assembled with them, would be logically necessary, so 
that Luke must have written cvvadiceis. The conjecture of Hemsterhuis : 
ovvadcCouévots, is completely unnecessary, although approved by Valckenaer. 
— tiv émayyediav Tov narpös] see on Luke xxiv. 49. Jesus means the promise 
cat’ é£oynv, given by God through the prophets of the O. T. (comp. ii. 
16), which, z.e. the realization of which, they were to wait for (wepyéverv 
only here in the N. T., but often in the classics) ; it referred to the 
complete effusion of the Holy Spirit, which was to follow only after 
His exaltion. Comp. John vil. 39, xv. 26, xiv. 16. Already during 
their earthly intercourse the rveöwa dy. was communicated by Jesus to 
the disciples partially and provisionally. Luke 1x. 55; John xx. 21, 22.— 
‘qv hKotoaté uov] The oblique form of speech is changed, as frequently also 
in the classies,* with the increase of*animation into the direct form, Luke 
v. 41, and elsewhere, particularly with Luke.” Bengel, moreover, aptly 
says: ‘ Atque hie parallelismus ad arctissimum nexum pertinet utriusque 
hbri Lucae,’’—but not in so far as 7» nkovo. pov points back to Luke xxiv. 
49 as to an earlier utterance (the usual opinion), but in so far as Jesus 


had employed the active. This is gram- 
matically incorrect ; 1t must then have been 
ovvaAilwv, or, with logical accuracy (as Luther 


1 Comp. Tob. xii. 19; 1 Kings viii. 8. 
2 Herod. v. 15. 102; Xen. Anab. vii. 3. 48: 
Lucian, Zuet. 7. 


3 Not as Luther (when He had assembled 
them), Grotius (“in unum recolligens qui 
dispersi fuerunt’’), and most interpreters, 
including even Kuinoel and Olshausen (not 
Beza and de Wette), explain it, as if Luke 


felt), cvvadicas. 

4 Stallb. ad Protag. pp. 322 C, 338 B, Kühner, 
§ 850. 

5 See Buttm. newt. Gr. p. 330 (E. T. 385). 


LAST WORDS OF JESUS, 27 


here, shortly before his ascension, gives the same intimation which was also 
given by Him on the ascension day (Luke xxiv. 49), directly before the 
ascent ; although according to the gospel the day of the resurrection coin- 
cides with that of the ascension (B, p. 6). Therefore jv 7rovo. wou is to be 
considered as a reference to a former promise of the Spirit, not recorded by 
Luke. Comp. John xiv. 16 f., xv. 26.—On dxovew ri twos, see Winer, p. 
187 (E. T. 249). 

Ver. 5. Reminiscence of the declaration of the Baptist, Luke iii. 16 ; John 
i. 33. ‘For on you the baptism of the Spirit will now soon take place 
which John promised instead of his baptism of water.’’—Barrıoßnasode] tiv 
émiyvow Kai Tov mAoörov THS xopnyias onuaiver., Theophyl. ; Matt. iii. 11; 
Mark i. 8; Luke iii. 16; Acts xi. 16. Moreover, comp. on John i. 33.— 
od uerd TOAA, TavT. juép.| is not a transposition for ob moAd pera Tavr. nuep., 
but : not after many of these, now and, up to the setting in of the future 
event, still current, days.‘ The position of the negative is to be explained 
from the idea of contrast, not after many, but after few.” 

Ver. 6. Not qui convenerant (Vulgate, Luther, and others), as if what 
follows still belonged to the scene introduced in ver. 4 ; but, as is evident 
from ovvaiig., ver. 4, comp. with ver. 12, a new scene, at which the ascen- 
sion occurred (ver. 9). The word of promise spoken by our Lord as they 
were eating (vv. 4, 5), occasioned (u?v odv) the apostles to come together, 
and in common to approach Him with the question, etc. Hence: They, 
therefore, after they were come together, asked Him. Where this joint asking 
occurred, is evident from ver. 12.° To the av corresponds the dein ver. 7. 
—év 79 xpövo «.r.A.] The disciples, acquainted with the ©. T. promise, that 
in the age of the Messiah the fulness of the Holy Spirit would be poured 
out (Joel iii. 1, 2; Acts ii. 16 ff.), saw in ver. 5 an indirect intimation of 
the now impending erection of the Messianic kingdom; comp. also 
Schneckenburger, p. 169. In order, therefore, to obtain quite certain in- 
formation concerning this, their nearest and highest concern, they ask : 
“ Lord, if Thou at this time restorest the (fallen) kingdom to the people Israel ?”’ 
The view of Lightfoot, that the words were spoken in indignation* simply 
introduces arbitrarily the point alleged.—ei] unites the question to the 
train of thought of the questioner, and thus imparts to it the indirect 
character. See on Matt. xii. 10, and on Luke xiii. 23.—év 76 yp. Tovry] 
i.e. at this present time, which they think they might assume from ver. 4 f. 
—aroxaicr.] See on Matt. xvii. 11. By their rö "Iopa7A they betray 
that they have not yet ceased to be entangled in Jewish Messianic 
hopes, according to which the Messiah was destined for the people of 


1 Comp. Winer, p. 152 (E. T. 201). that no discussions intervened which would 
2 See Kühner, II. 628. On ravras, inserted have diverted them from this definite inquiry 
between moAA. and nuep., comp. Xen. Anab. as to the time, Therefore ıt was probably 
iv. 2. 6, v.7.20, vii. 3.30; Dem. 90.11; Alc. on the same day. The rovr» is thus ex- 


1. 14. plained, which sounds as a fresh echo of that 
3 Concerning the time of the question, this OV META TOAA, TAUT. HK 
expression ev T® xpovw Tout gives so far in- 4 “Ttane nunc regnum restitues Judaeis illis, 


formation that it must have occurred very qui te cruct affixerunt?” 
soon after that meal mentioned in ver. 4, so 


28 CHAP. I., 4-11. 


Israel as such; comp. Luke xxiv. 21. An artificial explanation, on 
the other hand, is given in Hofmann, Schriftbew. IL. 2, p. 647.—The cir- 
cumstance that, by the declaration of Jesus, ver. 4 f., their sensuous expec- 
tation was excited and drew forth such a rash question, is very easily ex- 
plained just after the resurrection, and need occasion no surprise before the 
reception of the Spirit itself; therefore we have not, with Baumgarten, 
to impute to the disciples the reflection that the communication of the 
Spirit would be the necessary internal ground for all the shaping of the 
future, according to which idea their question, deviating from the tenor 
of the promise, would be precisely a sign of their understanding. 

Ver. 7 f. Jesus refuses to answer the question of the disciples ; not indeed 
in respect of the matter itself involved, but in respect of the time inquired 
after, as not beseeming them (observe the empuatic ody tueév ); and on the 
contrary (4444) He turns their thoughts, and guides their interest to their 
future official equipment and destination, which alone they were now to 
lay to heart. Chrysostom aptly says : dıdaokaAov roürö Eorı u) & Bovkerau 6 
pabytns, dA” & ovupepeı pabeiv, didackerv.—ypdvovs 7) Katpots] times or, in order 
to denote the idea still more definitely, seasons. kaıpös is not equivalent to 
xpövos, but denotes a definite marked off portion of time with the idea of fit- 
ness. On 7, which is not equivalent to «ai, comp. here Dem. Ol. 3: 
tiva yap xpövov 7 Tiva KaipoYr Tod TapdvToS BeAriw Imreire >—!0ero Ev TH iia éEovoia] 
has established by means of His own plenitude of power. On év, comp. Matt. xxi. 
23.— The whole declaration (ver. 7) is ageneral proposition, the application of 
which to the question put by the disciples is left to them ; therefore only in.re-” 
spect of this application is an ad hance rem perficiendem to be mentally supplied 
with ero, Bengel, however, well observes: ‘‘ gravis descriptio reservati di- 
vini ;’’ and “ergo res ipsa firma est, alias nullum ejus rei tempus esset.’’ But 
this res ipsa was, in the view of Jesus, which, however, we have no right to put 
into the question of the disciples, in opposition to Hofmann,’ the restoration 
of the kingdom, not for the natural, but for the spiritual Israel, compre- 
hending also the believing Gentiles (Rom. iv. 9), for the “Iopa7A rod Geos 
(Gal. vi. 16); see Matt. viii. 11; John x.'16, 26, viii. aan 
and already Matt iii. 9 ;—dvvayiv éreAQ rob dy. mv. 6’ buds] power, when 
the Holy Spirit has (shall have) come upon you.*—dprepes] namely, of 
my teaching, actions, and life, what ye all have yourselves heard and seen, 
v. 21f., x. 39 ff. ; Luke xxiv. 48 ; John xv. 27.—év re 'Iepovoad, . . . THS THS] 
denotes the sphere of the apostles’ work in its commencement and prog- 
ress, up to its most general diffusion; therefore 775 y7s is not to be 
explained of the land, but of the earth; and, indeed, it is to be observed 
that Jesus delineates for the apostles their sphere ideally, Comp. xiii. 47 ; 
Isa. viii. 9; Rom. x. 18; Col. 1. 23; Mark xvi. 15. 

Ver. 9. Kai vegéAn| This kai annexes what occurred after the éxipin, He was 
taken up on high, not yet immediately into heaven. The cloud, which re- 
ceived Him into itself, from before their eyes, is the visible manifestation 


! See Thom. Mag. p. 489 f.; Tittm. Synon. 2 Schrifibew. II. 2, p. 647. 
N. T. p. 41. 9 Winer, p. 119 (E. T. 156). 


THE ASCENSION. ! 29 


of the presence of God, who takes to Himself His Son into the glory of 
heaven. Comp. on Luke i. 35; Matt. xvii. 5. Chrysostom calls this 
cloud ro öxnua rd BaowAtKdv.— Concerning the ascension itself, which was cer- 
tainly bodily, but the occurrence of which has clothed itself with Luke in the 
‘ traditionary form of an external visible event (according to Dan. vii. 13; 
comp. Matt. xxiv. 30, xxvi. 64.' The representation of the scene betrays a 
more developed tradition than in the Gospel, but not a special design (Schnec- 
kenburger : sanction of the foregoing promise and intimation ; Baumgarten : 
that the exalted Christ was to appear as the acting subject properly speaking 
in the further course of the Book of Acts). Nothing of this kind is in- 
dicated. , 

Vv. 10, 11. ’Arevifovres 7oav] expresses continuance: they were in fixed 
gazing. To this (not to mopevou. air.) eis rov obmavöv belongs.? Strangely 
erroneous is the view of Lange, Apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 12: that os is not 
temporal, but as if: ‘‘they wished to fix the blue (?) heaven, which one 
cannot fix.’’ — ropevouévov aitod| whilst He, enveloped by the cloud, was 
departing (into heaven). — xai idov] as in Luke vii. 12, Acts x. 17; not as an 
anacoluthon, but: behold also there !*—The men are characterized as in- 
habitants of the heavenly world,* angels, who are therefore clothed in white. 
See on John xx. 12. — of kaı eimov] who (not only stood, but) also said : comp. 
ver. 3. — ri &orykare «.7.A.| The meaning is: ‘‘ Remain now no longer sunk 
in aimless gazing after Him; for ye are not for ever separated from this, 
Jesus,’ who will so come even as ye have seen Him go away into heaven.”’ 
— oöros] i.e. in the same manner come down from heaven in a cloud as He 
was borne up. Comp. Matt. xxiv. 30.— On the emphasis otros, dv rpümov, 
comp. xxvii. 25 ; 2 Tim. iii. 8. 

Ver. 12. The ascension took place on the Mount of Olives, which is not 
only here, but also in Luke xix, 29, xxi. 37, called éAqowr.° Its locality is 
indicated in Luke xxiv. 50, not differently from, but more exactly than in 
our passage (in opposition to de Wette and others) ; and accordingly there 
is no necessity for the undemonstrable hypothesis that the Sabbath-day’s 
journey is to be reckoned from Bethphage. * It is not the distance of the 
place of the ascension, but of the Mount of Olives, on which it occurred, that 
ismeant. Luke here supposes that more precisely defined locality as already 
known ; but if he had had any particular design” in naming the Mount of 
Olives, he must have said so, and could least of all presume that Theophilus 
would understand such a tacit prophetic allusion, especially as the Mount 
of Olives was already sufficiently known to him from the Gospel, xix. 29, 
xxi. 37, without any such latent reference. — caf @drov Exov dddv] having a 


1 See remark subjoined to Luke xxiv. 51. But if the tradition had meant /hese—and in 


2 Comp. iii. 4, vi. 15, vii. 55, xi. 6, xiii. 9 ; 2 
Cor. iii. 7, 13. To ovpavw might also have 
stood, Luke iv. 20, xxii. 56; Acts iii. 12, x. 
4, xxiii. 1. See generally, Valck. Schol. p. 
809 ff. Comp. Polyb. vi. 11. 7. 

3 See Nägelsbach, z. Z/ias, p. 164, ed. 3. 

4 According to Ewald, we are to think on 
Moses and Elias, as at the transfiguration. 


that case it would certainly have named them 
—Luke would hardly have left them unnamed. 
Comp. rather Luke xxiv. 4 ; Acts x. 30. 

ö See on Luke xix. 29. 

6 Wieseler, Synop. p. 435. 

7 Baumgarten, p. 28 f.: that he wished to 
lead their thoughts to the future, according 
to Ezek. xi. 23 ; Zech. xiv. 6. 


30 CHAP. I., 12-14. 


Sabbath'’s way. The way is conceived as something which the mountain 
has, i.e. which is connected with it in reference to the neighbourhood of 
Jerusalem. Such is—and not with Wetstein and Kuinoel : éyew pro azéyew 
—the correct view also in the analogous passages in Kypke, II. p. 8. The 
more exact determination of 6 éor Eyyds 'Iepovo. is here given; hence also 
the explanation of Alberti’ and Kypke, that it expresses the extent of the 
mountain (Sabbati consians itinere), is contrary to the context, and the use 
of éyevv is to be referred to the general idea conjunctum quid cum quo esse.” 
— A 0065 oaßdarov, a journey permitted on the Sabbath,° according to the tra- 
ditionary maxims, was of the length of 2000 cubits. See on Matt. xxiv. 
20. The different statements in Joseph. Antt. xx. 8. 6 (six stadia), and 
Bell. Jud. v. 2. 3 (five stadia), are to be considered as different estimates 
of the small distance. Bethany was fifteen stadia from Jerusalem,* hence 
the locality of the ascension is to be sought for beyond the ridge of the 
mountain on its eastern slope. 

Vv. 13, 14. Eio7A0ov] not: into their place of meeting, as Beza and others 
hold, but, in accordance with what immediately precedes: into the city. 
The simple style of a continued narrative. — Td brepwov] my, the room 
directly under the flat roof, used for praying and for meetings.° It is here 
to be conceived as in a private house, whose possessor was devoted to the 
gospel, and not with de Dieu, Lightfoot, Hammond, Schoettgen, and 
Krebs, as an upper room in the temple (on account of Luke xxiv. 53; see 
on that passage), because, considering the hatred of the hierarchy, the 
temple could neither be desired by the followers of Jesus, nor permitted to 
them as a place for their special closed meetings. Perhaps it was the same 
room as in John xx. 19, 26. — od joav karau.] where, i.e. in which they were 
wont to reside, which was the place of their common abode. The following 
6 re Ilétpos «.7.2. is a supplementary more exact statement of the subject of 
dveßmoav. According to Acts, it is expressly the Eleven only, who were 
present at the ascension. In the Gospel, xxiv. 33, comp. vv. 36, 44, 50, 
the disciples of Emmaus and others are not excluded ; but according to 
Mark xvi. 14, comp. vv. 15, 19, 20, it is likewise only the Eleven.—As to 
the list of the apostles, comp. on Matt. x. 2-4; Mark ili. 17, 18; Luke vi. 
14-16. — 6 InAorns] the (formerly) zealot. See on Matt. x. 4. — ’Iovdas 
‘IaxwBov| the relationship is arbitrarily defined as : brother of the (younger) 
James. It is: son of (an otherwise unknown) James. See on Luke vi. 
15 ; John xiv. 22; and Huther on Jude, Introd. § 1. Already the Syriac ~ 
gives the correct rendering. — öuoßvuadov] denotes no mere external being- 
together ; but, as Luther correctly renders it: wnanimously.° — odv yovacti] 


1 Ad Luce. xxiv. 13. 5 Hieros. Sotah, f. 24.2. See Lightfoot, p. 


2 Herm. ad Vig. p. 753. 

3 According to Schneckenburger, in the 
Stud. u. Krit. 1855, p. 502, this statement 
presupposes that the ascension occurred on 
the Sabbath. But the inference is rash, and 
without any historical trace. 

4 John xi. 16. See also Robinson, II. p. 
309 f. 


11. f., and Vitringa, Synag. p. 145, and con- 
cerning the word generally, which is very 
common with classical writers and not a com- 
pound, see Valckenaer, Schol. p. 317 f. ; Lo- 
beck, Hlem. 1. p. 452 f. 

6 Comp. Dem. Phil. IV. 147: ono@vuador ex 
plas yvwuns. So throughout in Acts and 
Rom. xy. 6. 


RETURN TO JERUSALEM. ol 


% 

along with women ; not: cum uxoribus (as Calvin holds) ;! they are partially 
known from the Gospels; Matt. xxvi. 56, 61; Luke viii. 2 f., xxiv. 10; 
Mark xv. 40 f. — «ai Map‘¢] «ai, also, singles out, after the mention in gen- 
eral terms, an individual belonging to the class as worthy of special remark.? 
—adedgois] The unbelief * of the four brothers-german (6) of the Lord was 
very probably overcome by His resurrection. Comp. on 1 Cor. xv. 7. Ob- 
serve that here, destdes the eleven apostles, two other classes are specified as 
assembled along with them (od» . . . «ai civ), namely (a), women, including 
the mother of Jesus; and (b) the brethren of Jesus. Among the latter, 
therefore, none of those eleven can be ineluded. This, in opposition to 
Lange, Hengstenberg, and older commentators. Comp. on John vii. 3. 
Ver. 15. ’E» rais jjép. ravr.] between the ascension and feast of Pente- 
cost. — Ilerpos] even now asserting his position of primacy in the apostolic 
circle, already apparent in the Gospels, and promised to him by Jesus 
Himself. — röv adeAgav (see the critical notes) denotes, as very often in the 
Book of Acts and the Epistles, the Christians according to their brotherly 
fellowship ; hence here (see the following parenthesis) both the apostles 
and the disciples of Jesus in the wider sense. — övoudr.] of persons, who are 
numbered.*—There is no contradiction between the number 120 and the 
500 brethren in 1 Cor. xv. 6 (in opposition to Baur and Zeller, who suppose 
the number to have been invented in accordance with that of the apostles : 
‚12x 10), as the appearance of Jesus in 1 Cor. /. ¢., apart from the fact that 
it may have taken place in Galilee, was earlier, when many foreign believers, 
pilgrims to the feast, might have been present in Jerusalem, who had now 
left.° — éxi rd aörö] locally united.*® 

Vv. 16, 17. “Avdpes adeAgoi is more honourable and solemn than the 
simpie familiar ddeAgoi.7— ide] It could not but be an especial object 
with Peter to lay the foundation for his judgment, by urging that the de- 
struction of Judas took place not accidentally, but necessarily according to 
the counsel of God. — tiv ypagnv taditnv] this which stands written—comp. on 
viii. 35—is not, with Wolf and Eckermann, to be referred to Ps. xli. 10 (John 
xiii. 18, xviii. 3), because otherwise that passage must have been adduced ; 
but to the passages contained in ver. 20, which Peter has already in view, 
but which he only introduces—after the remarks which the vivid thoughts 
crowding on him as he names Judas suggest—at ver. 20 in connection with 
what was said immediately before. — örı xarnp.] örı is equivalent to eis éxeivo, 
örı (Mark xvi. 14; John ii. 18, ix. 17; 2 Cor. i. 18, al.). If Judas had not 
possessed the apostolic office, the ypag7 referred to, which predicted the very 


Y 


1 See also Calovius and others, not uninter- nachapost. Zeitalt. p. 275 f. ; Baumgarten, p. 


ested in opposing celibacy. 

2 See Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 11. 

8 See on Matt. xii. 46, xiii. 55; Mark vi. 3; 
John vii. 5. 

4Comp. Ewald, ad Apoc. 3. 4. The ex- 
pression is not good Greek, but formed after 
the Hebrew, Num. i. 2, 18, 20, iii. 40, 43. 

5 Comp. Wieseler, Synops. p. 434, and see 
on 1 Cor. xv. 6; also Lechler, apost. u. 


29 f. ; 

6 Comp. ii. 1, iii, 1; Luke xvii. 35; Matt. 
xxii. 34; 1 Cor. vii. 5, xi. 20, xiv. 23; Hist. 
Susann. 14; often also in the LXX. and in 
Greek writers. See Raphel, Polyb., and 
Loesner. 

7 See ii. 29, 37, vii. 2, a. Comp. Xen. Anad. 
i. 6.6: ävöpes ido, See generally Sturz, Lex. 
Xen. I. p. 238. 


32 CHAP. I., 15-22. 
% 


vacating of an apostolic post, would not have been fulfilled in his fate. This ful- 
filment occurred in his case, inasmuch as he was an apostle. — rov kAnp. 775 dıar. 
tavr. | the lot of this (presenting itself in us apostles) ministry, i.e. the apostolic 
office. Comp. Rom. xi. 13. 6 «Ajpos is primarily the lot, ver. 26, then that 
which is assigned by lot, and then generally what is assigned, the share ; just 
as in Greek writers.' Baumgarten gratuitously would understand it as an 
antitype of the share of the twelve tribes in the land of*Canaan. The gen- 
itive is to be taken partitively—share in this ministry—as the idea of apostolic 
fellowship, in which each xAnpoöxos has therefore his partial possession in the 
service, also occurs in the sequel (see vv. 22, 26). — Aayxaveıv here not, as 
in Luke i. 9, with the partitive genitive, but, as is usual (2 Pet. i. 1), with 
the accusative of the object.” The word is the usual term for obtaining by 
lot, as in Luke i. 9; it next signifies generally to obtain, and is especially 
used of the receiving of public magistracies.* So here in reference to 7. . 
KAnp. T. Olax, ravr. ; in which case, however, an allusion to a hierarchical 
constitution (Zeller) is excluded by the generality of the wsus loguendi of 
the expressions, which, besides, might be suggested by the thought of the 
actual use of the lot which afterwards took place. 

Ver. 18. This person now acquired for himself a field for the wages of his 
iniquity—a rhetorical indication of the fact exactly known to the hearers : 
For the money which Judas had received for his treason, a place, a piece of land, 
was purchased, Matt. xxvii. 6-8. This rhetorical designation, purposely 
chosen on account of the covetousness of Judas,* clearly proves that ver. 18 
is part of the speech of Peter, and not, as Calvin, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, 
Olshausen, and others think, a remark inserted by Luke. With regard to 
the expression of the fact itself, Chrys. correctly remarks : 79cxdv morel tov 
Aöyov Kal Aavdavöovrws Thy airiav naudevrınyv oboav dxoxadixret. To go further, 
and to assume—what also the fragment of Papias in Cramer’s Cat. narrates 
—that the death of Judas took place in the field itself,° is not warranted by 
any indication in the purposely chosen form of representation. Others, 
such as Strauss, Zeller, de Wette, Ewald, have been induced by the direct 
literal tenor of the passage to assume a tradition deviating from Matthew, 
that Judas himself had actually purchased the field ; although it is im- 
probable in itself that Judas, on the days immediately following his treason, 
and under the pressure of its tragical event, should have made the purchase 
of a property, and should have chosen for this purchase the locality of 
Jerusalem, the arena of his shameful deed. — kai mpnvnS yevöu., ete.] kai is 
the simple and, annexing to the infamous deed its bloody reward. By 
mpnwns yevou.® «.7.2., the death of Judas is represented as a violent fall,” and 
bursting. The particular circumstances are presupposed as well known, 


1 Comp. Acts viii. 21, xxvi. 18; Wisd. ii. 9, 
v.53; Ecclus, xxv. 19. 

2 See Bernhardy, p. 176 ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 
IT. 9.2: 

3 Dem. 1306. 14; Plat. Gorg. p. 473 E. 

4 Beza aptly remarks that the mode of ex- 
pression affirms “ non quid conatus sit Judas, 
sed consiliorum ipsius eventum.” 


5 Hofm. Weissag. u. Erf. Tl. p. 184; Baumg. 
p. 31; Lange. 

6 Which cannot be rendered suspensus 
(Vulgate, Erasmus, Luther, Castalio). 

7 rpyvyjs, headlong: the opposite ürrıos, 
Hom. Z. xi. 179, xxiv. 11. 


ADDRESS OF PETER 33 


but are unknown to us. The usual mode of reconciliation with Matthew— 
that the rope, with which Judas hanged himself, broke, and that thus 
what is here related occurred—is an arbitrary attempt at harmonizing. 
Luke follows another tradition, of which it is not even certain whether it 
pointed to swicide (m). The twofold form of the tradition, and in Papias there 
occurs even a third,' does not render a tragical violent end of Judas unhis- 
torical in itself (Strauss, Zeller, and others), but only makes the manner 
of it uncertain. See, generally, on Matt. xxvii. 5. —!Aaxnoe] he cracked, 
burst in the midst of his body—a rhetorically strong expression of bursting 
with a noise.” 

Ver. 19. Not even these words are to be considered, with the above 
mentioned expositors,* as an inserted remark of Luke, but as part of the 
speech of Peter. For all that they contain belongs essentially to the com- 
plete description of the curse of the action of Judas: éyévero forms with 
édannoe and &Sexvßn, ver. 18, one continuously flowing representation, and 
yvaoröv . . . ‘Iepovo. is more suitable to rhetorical language than to that 
of simple narration. But rq iia duatéxtw abrov+ and roür’ éore Yop. aim. 
are two explanations inserted by Luke, the distinction between which and 
Peter’s own words might be trusted to the reader ; for it is self-evident 
(in opposition to Lange and older commentators) that Peter spoke not 
Greek but Aramaic. — yvooröv éyév.| namely, what is stated in ver. 18.— 
öore] so that, in consequence of the acquisition of that field and of this 
bloody death of Judas becoming thus generally known, According to our 
passage, the name “‘ field of blood ’’ (877 pn, comp. Matt. xxvii. 8) was 
occasioned by the fact that Judas, with whose wages of iniquity the 
field was acquired, perished in a manner so bloody—according to others, on 
the field itself (see on ver. 18). The passage in Matthew, l.c., gives 
another and more probable reason for the name. But it is by no means 
improbabie that the name soon after the death of Judas became assigned, 
first of all, in popular use, to the field purchased for the public destina- 
tion of being a ywpiov Zvragjvar ;> hence Peter might even now quote this 
name in accordance with the design of his speech. — dcddexros] in the N. 
T. only in Acts, a mode of speaking, may express as well the more general 
idea of language, as the narrower one of dialect." Im both senses it is often 
used by Polybius, Plutarch, etc. In the older Greek it is colloquium.’ 
In all the passages of Acts it is dialect, and that, excepting at ii. 6, 8, 
the Aramaic, although it has this meaning not in itself, but from its 
more precise definition by the context. 


1 See on Matt. xxvii. 5, and comp. Introd. 
sec. 1. 

2 Hom. J/. xiii. 616 ; Act. Thom. 37.—ééexv6y] 
Comp. Ael. Anim. iv. 52: ra amAayxva e£exearv. 

3 Also Schleierm. Hin/. p. 372. 

4 aurov : of the dwellers of Jerusalem (who 
spoke the Aramic dialect), spoken from the 
standpoint of Luke and Theophilus, ‘* quorum 
alter Graece scriberet alter legeret,’? Erasmus. 

5 Aeschin. i. 99 ; Matt. xxviii. 7. 

© Valckenaer well observes on the distinc- 


tion betweenthesetwo ideas : ‘‘ Habent omnes 
dialecti aliquid inter se commune; habent 
enim omnes candem Zinguam matrem, sed 
dialectum efticit, quod habent singulae pe- 
culiare sibi.” The Greeks also employ dwrn 
in both senses (see also Clem. Al. Strom. i. 
21, p. 404, Pott). 

7 Plat. Symp. p. 203 A. Theaet. p. 146 B, 
pronuntiatio (Dem. 982. 18), sermo (Arist. 
Poet. 22). 


34 CHAP, I., 23-26. 


Ver. 20. Tdp] The tragic end of Judas was his withdrawal from the 
apostolic office, by which a new choice was now necessary. But both that 
withdrawal and this necessity are, as already indicated in ver. 16, to be 
demonstrated not as something accidental, but as divinely ordained. —The 
first passage is Ps. Ixix. 26, freely quoted from memory, and with an 
intentional change of the plural (LXX. airöv), because its historical ful- 
filment is represented xar’ éoyjv in Judas. The second passage is Ps. cix. 
8, verbatim after the LXX. Both passages contain curses against enemies 
of the theocracy, as the antitype of whom Judas here appears.—The Eraviıs 
is not that ywpiov which had become desolate by the death of Judas (Chry- 
sostom, Oecumenius, and others; also Strauss, Hofmann, de Wette, 
Schneckenburger), but it corresponds to the parallel éxvcxor7, and as the 
xwpiov is not to be considered as belonging to Judas (see on ver. 18), the 
meaning is: ‘‘ Let his farm, i.e. in the antitypical fulfilment of the saying 
in the Psalm, the apostolic office of Judas, become desolate, forsaken by 
its possessor, and non-existent, i.e. let him be gone, who has his dwelling 
therein.’’ — ziv éxicxor.] the oversight,’ the superintendence which he had 
to exercise, JP, in the sense of the xAjpwors : the apostolic office. Comp. 
1 Tim. ili. 1 (of the office of a bishop). 

Vv. 21, 22. Oöv] In consequence of these two prophecies, according to 
which the ofiice of Judas had to be vacated, and its transference to another is 
necessary. — Töv cuveAdvTwv] dependent on éva,ver. 22: one of the men who 
have gone along with us,” who have taken part in our wanderings and journeys. 
Others: who have come together with us, assembled with us.* So Vulgate, 
Beza, de Wette, but never so in the N. T. See on Mark xiv. 53. — év ravti 
xpövw, Ev &| all the time, when. — cioniOe kat éjAbev] a current, but not a 
Greek, designation of constant intercourse. Deut. xxvill. 19; Ps. exxi. 8; 
1 Sam. xxix. 6; 2 Chron. i. 10. Comp. John x. 9; Acts ix. 28. — 20’ nuäs] 
a brief expression for &10720. &9’ huäs x. &5779. ag’ juav.* — apfäu. . 
is a parenthesis, and éwS 775 nuepas is to be attached to eiojAde . . . ’Inooös, 
as Luke xxiii. 5. See on Matt. xx. 8. — éwS 7. nu. 75 x.r.A.] 75 is not put by 
attraction for 7,-—as the attraction of the dative, very rare even among the 
Greek writers,° is without example in the N. T.,—but is the genitive of 
the definition of time.® Hence also the expression having the preposition 
involved, äypı 75 nuepas, ver. 2, comp. xxiv. 11. — näprupa tS avacr, abtod] 
i.e. apostle, inasmuch as the apostles announce the resurrection of Jesus (1 
Cor. xv.), the historical foundation of the gospel, as eye-witnesses, i.e. as 
persons who had themselves seen and conversed with the risen Jesus ; comp. 
ii. 32, and see on ver. 8.-- rovrwv] is impressively removed to the end, 
pointing to those to be found among the persons present (of those there), 


. . lwavvov 


1 Lucian, D. D. xx. 8, frequently in the 
LXX. and Apocr. 

2 jx, 39, x. 23, al. ; Hom. J. x. 221. 

3 Soph. 0. R. 572; Polyb. i. 78. 4. 

4See Valckenaer on the passage, and ad 
Eurip. Phoen. 536; Winer, p. 580 (E. T. 80). 
Comp. also John i. 51, 


5 See Kiihner, ad. Xen. Mem, II. 2. 4. 

6 Matthiae, § 377. 2; Winer, p. 155 (E. T. 
204). So, too, in Lev. xxiii. 15; Bar. i. 19. 
Comp. Tob. x. 1; Susann. 15° Hist. Bel and 
Drag. 3. 


ELECRION OF MATTHIAS. 35 


and emphatically comprehending them.’—Thus Peter indicates, as a 
requisite of the new apostle,? that he must have associated with the 
apostles (#iv) during the whole of the ministry of Jesus, from the time when 
John was still baptizing (a70 rod Barr, ’lodvv.) until the ascension. That in 
this requirement, as Heinrichs and Kuinoel suppose, Peter had in view one 
of the Seventy disciples, is an arbitrary assumption. But it is evident that 
for the choice the apostles laid the entire stress on the capacity of historical 
testimony (comp. x. 41), and justly so, in conformity with the positive contents 
of the faith which was to be preached, and as the element of the new di- 
vine life was to be diffused. On the special subject-matter of the testimony 
(r7js avaor. airod) Bengel correctly remarks: ‘‘ qui illud credidere, totam 
fidem suscepere.’’ How Peter himself testified, may be seen at 1 Pet. i. 3. 
Comp. Acts ii. 32, iii. 15, iv. 33, v. 32, x. 40. 

Ver. 23. ’Eoryjcav] The subject is, as in vv. 24, 26, all those assembled. 
They had recognised in these two the conditions required by v. 21 f. ‘‘ Ideo 
hic demum sors incipit, qua res gravis divinae decisioni committitur et im- 
mediata apostoli peragitur vocatio,’? Bengel. For this solemn act they are 
put forward.— "Iwo7¢ r. Kar, Bapoa3zav| Concerning him nothing further is 
known. For he is not identical® with Joses Barnabas, iv. 36, against which 
opinion that very passage itself testifies ; from it have arisen the name ’Iwo7v 
in Band Bapvaßav in D (so Bornemann).* Barsabas is a patronymic (son of 
Saba) ; Justus is a Roman surname (yo), adopted according to the custom 
then usual, see Schoettgen.—Nor is anything historically certain as to 
Matthias.® 

Vv. 24, 25. Without doubt it was Peter, who prayed in the name of all 
present. The zpocevédu. is contemporaneous with elzov: praying they said. 
See on Eph. i. 9. — xvpce] (1), mr. Comp. iv. 29. In opposition to the view 
of Bengel, Olshausen, and Baumgarten, that the prayer is directed to Jesus, 
—for which 6p 22e2220 is appealed to, because Christ chooses His own mes- 
sengers, —xv. 7 is decisive, where the same Peter says expressly of God: 
éEeAétaro did Tov oröuarös pov Akovcaı ra 24vy, etc., and then also calls God 
kapdıoyvoorns (comp. 34 ‘pn, Jer. xvii. 10). By the decision of the lot the 
call to the apostleship was to take place, and the call is that of God, Gal. 1. 
15. God is addressed as kapdıoyvoer. because the object was to choose the 
intrinsically best qualified among the two, and this was a matter depending 
on the divine knowledge of the heart. The word itself is found neither in 
Greek writers nor in the LXX.—In Aaßeiv röv rörov (see the critical notes) 
the ministry is considered as a place, as a post which the person concerned 


1 Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 225. 

2 And Luke relates this as faithfully and 
dispassionately as he does what is contained 
in x. 41. He would hardly have done so, if he 
had had the design imputed to him by Baur 
and his school, as such sayings of Peter did 
not at all suit the case of Paul. 

In opposition to Heinrichs and others, 
also Ullmann in the Stud. uw. Krit. 1828, p. 
377 ff. 


4See also Mynster in the Stud. uw. Krit. 
1829, p. 326 f. 

5 Traditional notices in Cave, Antig. ap. p. 
735 ff. According to Eus. i. 12. 1, he was one 
of the Seventy. Concerning the apocryphal 
Gospel under his name, already mentioned by 
Origen, see Fabric. Cod. apocr. N. T. p. 782 
Apocryphal Acta Andreae et Matthiae may 
be seen in Tischend. Act. apocr. p. 132 ff. 


36 CHAP. I., 23-26. 


istoreceive. Comp. Ecclus. xii. 12. — kat arooroA7s] designates more definite- 
ly the previous d:axovias. There is thus here, among the many instances 
for the most part erroneously assumed, a real case of an &v did dvoiv.1— 
ag’ 75 map£ßn] away from which Judas has passed over, to go to his own place. 
A solemn circumstantiality of description. Judas is vividly depicted, as he, 
forsaking his apostleship (a@’ 75), has passed from that position to go to his 
own place. Comp. Ecclus. xxiii. 18: rapafaivwv and rjS KkAlvns abtod. — Topevd, 
eis T. Tom. T. idtov] denotes the end destined by God for the unworthy Judas 
as his own, to which he must come by his withdrawal from the apustolic 
office. But the meaning of 6 roros 6 idıos (the expression is purposely chosen 
as correlative to rév römov r. dıar. etc.) is not to be decided from the linguis- 
tic use of röros, as röros may denote any place, but entirely from the con- 
text. And this requires us to understand by it Gehenna, which is conceived 
as the place to which Judas, according to his individuality, belongs. As 
his treason was so frightful a crime, the hearers could be in no doubt as to 
the röros idıos. This explanation is also required for the completeness and 
energy of the speech, and is itself confirmed by analogous rabbinical pas- 
sages.” Hence the explanations are to be rejected which refer rör. idıos to 
the habitation of Judas,* or to that ywpiov, where he had perished, * or to the 
‘¢ societas, quam cum sacerdotibus ceterisque Jesu adversariis inierat’’ (Hein- 
richs). Others (Hammond, Homberg, Heumann, Kypke, comp. already 
Oecumenius) refer ropev9jrar . . . idıov even to the successor of Judas, so that 
the rör. idıos would be the apostleship destined for him. But such a con- 
struction would be involved (zopev§. would require again to be taken as an 
‘object of Aa3eiv), and after Zafeiv . . . droororjs tautological. The reading 
Sixacov, instead of idcov, in A hits the correct meaning. The contrast ap- 
pears in Clem. Cor. I. 5 as to Paul: eis röv äyıov rörov Eropeidn, and as to 
Peter: eis rov dpecAduevov römov 775 ddENS.5 

Ver. 26. And they, namely, those assembled, gave for them (airois, see the 
critical notes) Jots — i.e. tablets, which were respectively inscribed with 
one of the two names of those proposed for election — namely into the 
vessel in which the lots were collected, Lev. xvi. 8. The expression 
Zöwkav is opposed to the idea of casting lots; comp. Luke xxiii. 34 and 
parallels. — éecev 6 «A7pos] the lot, (5) giving the decision by its falling out, 
fell by the shaking of the vessel. — éx? Mar9.] on Matthias, according to the 
figurative conception of the lot being shaken over both.” — This decision by 
the bela tiyn 8 of the lot isan Old Testament practice,’ suitable for the time before 
the effusion of the Spirit, but not recurring afterwards, and therefore not to 
be justified in the Christian congregational life by our passage. — ovykareınd. 


1 See Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 856 ; Nigelsb. 8 raAAcır, comp. Hom. JZ. iii. 316, 324, vii. 
2. Ilias, p. 361, ed. 3. 181, Od. xi. 206, al. 

2See in Lightfoot, e.g. Baal Turim, on 7 Hom. Od. xiv. 209 ; Ps. xxii. 19, a2. Comp. 
Num. xxiv. 25: “Balaam ivitin locum suum, LXX. Ezek. xxiv. 6; John i. 7. 


z.e. in Gehennam.”’ 8 Plat. Legg. vi. 759 C; comp. Prov. xvi. 33. 
3 Keuchen, Moldenhauer, Krebs, Bolten. 9 Num. xxvi. 52 ff. ; Josh. vii. 14; 1 Sam. x. 
4 Elsner, Zeller, Lange, Baumgarten, and 20;1 Chron. xxiy. 5, xxv. 8; Proy. xvi. 33; 
others. comp. also Luke i. 9. 


5 Comp. Polyc. Phil. 9; Ignat. Magn. 5. 


NOTES. . 37 


peta 7. évd, am. | he was numbered along with’ the eleven apostles, so that, in 
consequence of that decision by lot, he was declared by those assembled to 
be the twelfth apostle. Bengel correctly adds the remark: ‘‘ Non dicuntur 
manus novo apostolo impositae, erat enim prorsus immediate constitutus.’’ 
It is otherwise at vi. 6. — The view which doubts the historical character of 
the supplementary election at all (see especially Zeller), and assumes that 
Matthias was only elected at a later period after the gradual consolidation 
of the church, rests on presuppositions (it is thought that the event of 
Pentecost must have found the number of the apostles complete) which 
. break down in presence of the naturalness of the occurrence, and of the 
artless simplicity of its description. 


NOTES BY AMERICAN EDITOR. 
(E) Name. Y. 1. 


The name of the book is traditional and ancient, but not apostolie or 
appropriate. 'The work is certainly not a record of the acts of the apostles, as 
it says little of any of them except Peter and Paul. The word “ Acts ” seems to 
be used in the sense of ‘“ Memoirs.” Dr. Plumptre would call it Origines 
Ecclesie. The record is authentic and reliable, but makes no claims to com- 
pleteness. It is a history of beginnings only of the work of the church on 
earth, but a continuation of the work of Christ in her and for her. 


(F) ‘‘ Forty days.’ V. 3. 


In this passage alone is the period between the resurrection and the 
ascension defined. Some assert that there is'a discrepancy between the state- 
ment here given and the Gospel; they say according to the Gospel both 
events occurred on the same day. No such discrepancy really exists between 
the account which closes the Gospels and opens the Acts. The later account 
is more full and minute, and furnishes some incidents connected with the 
sublime event, and indicates the time when it occurred. Surely no candid 
reader of the Gospel narratives can for a moment suppose that all which is 
recorded of the life of our Lord on earth after his resurrection transpired in 
one day. Moreover, if he ascended on the same day he rose from the sep- 
ulchre, it must have been very late at night, which seems at variance with the 
entire record. Our author supposes an interval between the two grand events, 
but suggests that during that interval, or rather from the time between the 
writing of the two treatises by Luke, a period probably of not more than 
five years, a tradition “was formed, or at least acquired currency, concern- 
ing the forty days and other incidents of the ascension.’’ See his Commentary 
on Luke xxiy. 50-5 ; and on Acts i. 3 and 9. 


LovyxataynpigecOac in this sense, thus 21 it signifies fo condemn with. Frequently, 
equivalent to cupindigerOar (xix. 19), is not and quite in the sense of ovyxarawn. here, 
elsewhere found ; D actually has ovveundio®n  ovycarapiOuetcar is found. N* has only 
as the result of a correct explanation. The xareimdio@n. So also Constitt. ap. vi. 12.1. 
word is, altogether, very rare ;in Plut. Tem. & 


38 CHAP. I. 


But no such supposed ‘more developed tradition’ is required to harmonize the 
record, or to vindicate the veracity of the historian. The later account does 
not contradict, but only supplements the earlier, 

“Luke alone, in his Gospel and in the Acts, has given us a detailed view 
of the scene, which is indicated by Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 7, and assumed throughout 
the whole N. T. Interpreters like Meyer think themselves obliged to limit 
the ascension of Jesus to a purely spiritual elevation, and to admit no external 
visible in which this elevation was manifested.’’ 

“The reality of such a fact as that related by Luke in his account of the as- 
cension is indubitable, both from the standpoint of faith in the resurrection, 
and from the standpoint of faith in Benen The ascension is a postulate of © 
faith.’ (Godet.) 

The ascension was a necessary consequence of the resurrection ; it was pre- 
dicted in the O. T.; it was prefigured by the translation of Enoch and of 
Elijah; it is recorded by two evangelists ; it is presupposed in the Gospel of 
John ; it is referred to asa fact and a foundation for doctrine in the Epistles ; 
Stephen, Paul, and John saw him in his ascended state ; so that the visible 
personal ascension of our Lord from the slope of Olivet into heaven is a doc- 
trine most surely believed and rejoiced in. 


(a) ‘* His brethren.” V. 14. 


The four brothers-german of our Lord, James, Joses, Simon, and Judas: 
these have generally been supposed to be the sons of Mary, the sister 
of the mother of Jesus, and therefore only his cousins. For this supposi- 
tion we find no authority in Scripture. James, the son of Alpheus, one of 
the twelve, is clearly a different person from ‘‘James, the Lord’s brother.” 
Three Jameses are mentioned in the Gospels — James, the son of Zebedee, 
brother of John, one of the twelve ;—James, the son of Alpheus, brother of 
Judas, one of the twelve ;—and James, the son of Joseph, brother of our Lord, 
but not one of the twelve. The story of the immaculate conception and per- 
petual virginity of Mary has not the slightest foundation in the Bible, and 
the common and natural meaning of the terms used in Matt. xiii, 55, 56, 
Mark vi. 3, Gal i. 19, and Ps. lxix. 8, implies that his brothers were the sons 
of his mother, That those called his brethren were different persons from 
the son of Alpheus and his brothers is manifest, because after the twelve were 
chosen and named by Jesus, ‘‘ his brethren’’ did not believe in him. In this 
passage they are mentioned as distinct from, and not of the eleven apostles, 
An interesting and satisfactory discussion of this question may be found 
in a small volume, by Rev. Chauncey W. Fitch, D.D. 


(a) Fate of Judas. V. 18. 


There is a difference but no contradiction in the accounts given by Matthew 
and Luke. Matthew does not say what happened to the body of Judas after 
he hanged himself ; nor does Luke say what he did to himself ere he fell head- 
long and burst asunder in the midst. We have not the link to connect the act of 
suicide with what befell his body ; but the two facts are in no sense at va- 
riance. 

‘‘ Matthew traces the traitor’s fall through all its human stages of remorse 


NOTES. 39 


to his own self-inflicted penalty. Luke (Peter) portrays not the act of Judas 
in the frenzy of desperation, but the act of God in righteous retribution.’’ 

“ The two accounts are (not as Meyer the result of different traditions, but) 
companion pictures by inspired artists equally and perfectly informed. 
Whereof, in strict suitability to their several designs, one reveals the human 
side of the tragedy, and the other the divine.”’ 

« Matthew wrote as a historian for a wide circle of readers, many of whom 
had no previous knowledge of the case ; he therefore states the main fact, and, 
according to his custom, passes over the minute details. Peter orally address- 
ing those who knew the facts as fully as himself, and less than six weeks after 
their occurrence, and upon the very spot, assumes the main fact as already 
known, and naturally dwells upon those very circumstances which the Evan- 
gelist many years later no less wisely and naturally leaves out altogether. 

‘However this may seem to others, there is scarcely an American or English 
jury that would scruple to receive these two accounts as perfectly consistent.” 
(Alexander. 


(a), Thou, Lord. > Vi. 24, 


Whether this prayer was addressed to Christ or to God the Father has 
been disputed, We agree with those who consider Christ as here addressed. 
The word Kvgios, when used absolutely in the N. T., generally refers to 
Christ ;—Jesus is called Kvo:os in verse 21 :—all the other apostles were 
selected by him, as was afterwards Paul. The first Christians were in the 
habit of praying to Christ. Peter on a former occasion in addressing Jesus 
said, “Lord, thou knowest all things ; thou knowest that I love thee.” 


(5). “ The lot. VY. 26. 


Under the Theocracy the lot was used for various purposes; for the 
division of the land—for decision in certain criminal cases—for the selec- 
tion of troops in military enterprises—and for the appointment to important 
offices. The only instance under the new dispensation is this case, of Mat- 
thias, The Roman soldiers gambling at the cross for the robe of Jesus is an 
illustration of the practice, but no sanction for it. From the sanction of O. T. 
and this example of the apostles many argue in favor of the admissibility of 
the practice. Calvin, in his Com. on this text, says: ‘‘Those men who think 
it to be wickedness to cast lots at all, offend partly through ignorance, and 
partly they understand not the force of this word. There is nothing which 
men do not corrupt with their boldness and vanities, whereby it has come to 
pass that they have brought lots into great abuse and superstition. For that 
divination or conjecture which is made by lots is altogether devilish.”’ 
Though the custom has been corrupted and depraved, he holds it to be lawful 
and Christian. Others have called in question the propriety of this election of 
Matthias, and argue with no little plausibility that Matthias was not the di- 
vinely appointed successor of Judas, but Paul, who was soon after specially 
chosen and commissioned by Christ himself to the apostleship. But Matthias 
was reckoned one of the twelve (Acts vi. 2). Inasmuch as we have no instance 
of casting lots after the Spirit was given to the church, the practice now, in 
our judgment, is more than questionable. 


40 CHAP. II., 1-3. 


CHAPTER IL. 


VER. 1. amavres öuoßvuadov] Lachm. and Tisch. read ruvres öuov, after AB C¥ 
N, min. Vulg. Correctly : the öuoduuudov, so very frequent in the Acts, unin- 
tentionally supplanted the duod found elsewhere in the N. T. only in John ; 
muvres, Which is wanting in N*, critically goes along with the reading öuod. — 
Ver. 2. xaßnuevor] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read xadelöuevo., according to C D. 
The Recepta (comp. on xx. 9) is more usual in the N. T., and was accordingly 
inserted. — Ver. 3. dce/] is wanting only in N*. — éxdficev] Born., following 
D* N*, Syr. utr. Arr. Copt. Ath. Did. Cyr., reads Exa9ıcav. A correction occa- 
sioned by y/doca. — Ver. 7. After éficrav7o J2 Elz. has ravres, which Lachm. 
Scholz, Tisch. Born. have erased, following B D, min. and several yss. and 
Fathers. From ver. 12. — zpos a/A720us] is wanting in ABC 8, 26, Copt. Sahid. 
Aeth. Vulg. Theodoret. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. It was, as self-evident, 
easily passed over. Its genuineness is supported by the reading mpös aA?7Aovs, 
ver. 12, instead of a/20S xpos dAAov, which is found in 4, 14, al., Aeth. Vulg. 
Chrys. Theophyl., and has manifestly arisen from this passage. — Ver. 12. ri dv 
OéAut Toro eivar] Lachm. Born. read ri 6éAe: TodTo eivaı, following A BC D, min. 
Chrys. : A has 6éAec after roüro. But after Aéyew the direct expression was 
most familiar to the transcribers (comp. ver. 7). — Ver. 13. dıayAsvalorres] Elz. 
reads yAevdlovres, against preponderating testimony. — Ver. 16. ’Io7A] Tisch. 
and Born. have deleted this word on too weak authority ; it is wanting among 
the codd. only in D.— Ver. 17. &vvrvioıs] Elz. reads évu7va, against decisive 
codd. From LXX. Joel iii. 1. — Ver. 22. airoi] Elz. reads kat auroi. But Lachm. 
and Tisch. have correctly deleted «ai, in accordance with A B C* D ES, min, 
and several vss. and Fathers. xai, both after cafés and before airoi, was very 
familiar to the transcribers. — Ver. 23. After édorov Elz. and Scholz read 
?aßBövres, which is wanting in ABC N*, min. and several vss. and Fathers. An 
addition to develope the construction. — Instead of yeıpov, Lachm. Tisch, Born. 
have yeıpös, following A BC D8, min. Syr. p. Aeth. Ath. Cyr. And justly, as 
yetpov was evidently inserted for the sake of the following avönwv. — Ver. 24. 
§avatov] D, Syr. Erp. Copt. Vulg. and several Fathers read @dov. So Born. 
From vv. 27, 31. — Ver. 27. ddov] Lachm. Born. and Tisch. read &@dnv, which was 
already recommended by Griesb., in accordance with A B C D8, min. Clem. 
Epiph. Theophyl. As in the LXX. Ps. xvi. 10, the reading is also different, A 
having ddov and B ddnv ; the text here is to be decided merely by the prepon- 
derance of testimonies, which favours ddnv.— Ver. 30. Before kabioaı, Elz. 
Scholz. Born. read 73 kara odpxa avaornoeın Tov Xpicrév, which is wanting in 
A BC D** 8, min, and most vss. and several Fathers, has in other witnesses 
considerable variation, and, as already Mill correctly saw, is a marginal gloss 
inserted in the text. — Instead of roi Opévov, Lachm. Born. Tisch. read röv 6pdvov, 
according to ABCD, min: Eus. This important authority, as well as the 
circumstance that éxi with the genitive along with xadiZeıw is very usual in the 
N. T, (comp. Luke xxii. 20; Acts xii. 21, xxv. 6, 17; Matt. xix. 28, xxii. 2, 





DESCENT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 41 


xxv, 31), decides for the accusative. — Ver. 31. kareAei6ßr] ABCDEN, min, 
and several Fathers read &yrareAeigßn. Recommended by Griesb., and adopted 
by Lachm. Tisch. Born. From ver. 27. Therefore not only is dönv (instead 
of gdov) read by Tisch., but also after kare)sio0n there is read by Elz. buy) 
avroi, for the omission of which the authorities decide. —oÜre . . . obre is ac- 
cording to important testimony to be received, with Lachm. Tisch. Born., 
instead of ob... oidé, as the reading given in the text appears likewise to 
have been formed from ver. 27. — Ver. 33. tues] Elz. Scholz have viv ieis. 
But, according to A B C* D 8, min. and many vss. and Fathers, Lachm. Born. 
Tisch. have erased viv, which is an addition by way of gloss. — Ver. 37. momjoouev] 
romowuev is found in AC E 8, min. Fathers. But the deliberative subjunctive 
was the more usual. Comp. on iv. 16, — Ver. 38. &#n] is, with Lachm. and 
Tisch., to be erased, as it is entirely wanting in B min. Vulg. ms. Aug., and 
other witnesses read gyciv, which they have partly after neravoyo. (A C8, 15, 
al.), partly airods (D). A supplementary addition. — Ver. 40. Sceaptiparto]-Elz. 
Scholz read dıeuaprupero, against decisive testimony. A form modelled after 
the following imperfect. — Ver. 41. After oöv, Elz. Scholz read douevos, which 
Lachm. and Tisch. have deleted, in accordance with far preponderating testi- 
mony. A strengthening addition. — Ver. 42. kai before 77 xAdcer is rejected by 
decisive testimony (erased by Lachm. Tisch. Born.). — Ver. 43. £y&vero] Lachm. 
Tisch. Born. read £yivero, according to AB CD N, min. Vulg. Copt. Syr. utr. 
This considerable attestation prevents us from assuming a formation resem- 
bling what follows ; on the contrary, éyévero has been inserted as the more 
usual form. — Ver. 47. 77 &xkAnoia] is wanting in A BC S, Copt. Sahid. Aeth. 
Arm. Vulg. Cyr. Deleted by Lachm., after Mill and Bengel. It was omitted 
for the sake of conformity to ver. 41, because ézi ro aurö, iii. 1, was considered 
as still belonging to ii. 47, and therefore iii. 1 began with Iletpds de (so 
Lachm.). 


Ver. 1.’ When the day of Pentecost became full, i.e., when the day of Pen- 
tecost had come, on the day of Pentecost. The day is, according to the He- 
brew mode,’ conceived as a measure to be filled up ;* so long as the day had 
not yet arrived, but still belonged to the future, the measure was not yet 
filled; but empty. But as soon as it appeared, the fulfilment, the making 
the day full, the couzA7jpwors* therewith occurred ; by which, without figure, 
is meant the realization of the day which had not hitherto become a reality. 
The expression itself, which concerns the definite individual day, is at va- 
riance with the view of Olshausen and Baumgarten, who would have the 
time from Easter to be regarded as becoming full. Quite without warrant, 
Hitzig° would place the occurrence not at Pentecost at all. See, in oppo- 
sition to this, Schneckenb. p. 198 f. — 7 wevrnkoory] is indeed originally to 
be referred to the jucpa understood ; but this supplementary noun had en- 
tirely fallen into disuse, and the word had become quite an independent 
substantive.® zevrnxoorn also occurs in Tob. ii. 1, quite apart from its nu- 


‘Concerning the Pentecostal occurrence, and many similar passages in the N. T. and in 
see van Hengel, de gave der talen, Pinkster- the Apocrypha. 
studie, Leid. 1864. 4 Comp. 3 Esdr. i 58; Dan. ix. 2. 

2 See Gesen. Ties. 8.v. won. 5 Ostern und Pfingst, p. 39 f. 

3 Comp. also ix. 23; Luke ii. 6, xxii. 9, 51, ® Comp. Mace. xii, 32. 


42 OLBAP. CLES Ale 


meral signification, and &v 79 tevtnKoory Eoprä is there : on the Pentecost-feast.! 
The feast of Pentecost, II Nav, Deut. xvi. 9, 10 (ayia Errü &3douadwv, 
Tob. J.c.), was one of the three great festivals, appointed as the feast 
of the grain-harvest (Ex. xxiii. 16; Num. xxviii. 26), and subsequently, al- 
though we find no mention of this in Philo and Josephus,’ regarded also 
as the celebration of the giving of the law from Sinai, falling (Ex, xix. 1) 
in the third month.? It was restricted to one day, and celebrated on the 
fiftieth day after the first day of the Passover (Lev. xxiii. 15, 16); so that 
the second paschal day, i.e. the 16th of Nisan, the day of the sheaf offer- 


ing, is to be reckoned as the first of these fifty days.“ Now, as in that 
year the Passover occurred on the evening of Friday (see on John xviii. 
28), and consequently this Friday, the day of the death of Jesus, was the 
14th of Nisan, Saturday the 15th, and Sunday the 16th, the tradition of 
the ancient church has very correctly placed the first Christian Pentecost 
on the Sunday.’ Therefore the custom—which, besides, cannot be shown 
to have existed at the time of Jesus—of the Karaites, who explained naw 
in Lev. xxiii. 15 not of the first day of the Passover, but of the Sabbath 
occurring in the paschal week, and thus held Pentecost always ona Sunday, ° 
is to be left entirely out of consideration (in opposition to Hitzig) ; and it 
is not to be assumed that the disciples might have celebrated with the 
Karaites both Passover and Pentecost.” But still the question arises : 
Whether Luke himself conceived of that first Christian Pentecost as a Saturday 
or a Sunday ? As he, following with Matthew and Mark the Galilean tradi- 
tion, makes the Passover occur already on Thursday evening, and be par- 
taken of by Jesus Himself, and accordingly makes the Friday of the cru- 
cifixion the 15th of Nisan ; so he must necessarily—but just as erroneously 
— have conceived of this first mevrnkoorn asa Saturday,” unless we should 
assume that he may have had no other conception of the day of Pentecost 
than that which was in conformity with the Christian custom of the Sunday 
celebration of Pentecost ; which, indeed, does not correspond with his ac- 
count of the day of Jesus’ death as the 15th Nisan, but shows the correct- 
ness of the Johannine tradition. — joav ruvres öuod Em To airö] Concerning 
the text, see the critical remarks; concerning &ri TO aürö, see on i, 15. 
These ravres, all, were not merely the apostles, but all the followers of Jesus 
then in Jerusalem, partly natives and partly strangers, including the apostles. 
For, first of all, it may certainly be presumed that on the day of Pentecost, 
and, moreover, at the hour of prayer (ver. 15), not the apostles alone, but 
with them also the other aadnrai—among whom there were, without doubt, 
many foreign pilgrims to the feast—were assembled. Moreover, in ver. 
14 the apostles are distinguished from the rest. Further, the rävres, 


- 





1 See Fritzsche in loc. primitiva et vera festorum ap. Hebr. ratione, 
2 Comp. Bauer in the Stud. u. Writ. 1843, p. Hal. 1852, who will have the fifty days reckoned 
680. from the dast paschal day; see Ewald, Jahrb. 
3 Danz in Meuschen, N. 7. ex Talm.ill.p. IV. p. 134 f. 
741; Buxt. Synag. p. 438. 6 Ideler, II. p. 613; Wieseler, Synop. p. 349. 
4 See Lightfoot and Wetstein in loc. ; Ewald, 7 See also Vaihinger in Herzog’s Zncykl. XI. 
Alterth. p. 476 f. ; Keil, Archäol. § 83. p. 476 f. 


5 In opposition to the view of Hupfeld, de 8 Wieseler, Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 19. 


DESCENT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 43 


designedly added, by no means corresponds to the small number of the 
apostles (i. 26), especially as in the narrative immediately preceding men- 
tion was made of a much greater assembly (i. 15); it is, on the contrary, 
designed—because otherwise it would have been superfluous—to indicate 
a still greater completeness of the assembly, and therefore it may not be lim- 
ited even to the 120 persons alone. Lastly, it is clear also from the prophetic 
saying of Joel, adduced in ver. 16 ff., that the effusion of the Spirit was 
not on the apostles merely, but on all the new people of God, so that 
üravres (ver. 1) must be understood of all the followers of Jesus—of course, 
according to the latitude of the popular manner of expression. 

Ver. 2 describes what preceded the effusion of the Spirit as an audible 
onueiov—a sound occurring unexpectedly from heaven as of a violent wind borne 
along.“ The wonderful sound is, by the comparison (éorep) with a violent 
wind, intended to be brought home to the conception of the reader, but 
not to be represented as an actual storm of wind (Eichhorn, Heinrichs), 
or gust (Ewald), or other natural phenomenon.?— oixov] is not arbitrarily 
and against N. T. usage to be limited to the room (Valckenaer), but is to 
be understood of a private house, and, indeed, most probably of the same 
house, which is already known from i. 13, 15 as the meeting-place of the 
disciples of Jesus. Whether it was the very house in which Jesus partook 
of the last supper (Mark xiv. 12 ff.), as Ewald conjectures, cannot be 
determined. If Luke had meant the temple, as, after the older com- 
mentators, Morus, Heinrichs, Olshausen, Baumgarten, also Wieseler, p. 18, 
and Lange, Apost. Zeitalt. II. p. 14, assume, he must have named it; the 
reader could not have guessed it. For (1) it is by no means necessary that 
we should think of the assembly on the first day of Pentecost and at the 
time of prayer just as in the temple. On the contrary, ver. 1 describes the 
circle of those met together as closed and in a manner separatist ; hence a 
place in the temple could neither be wished for by them nor granted to 
them. Nor is the opinion, that it was the temple, to be established from 
Luke xxiv. 53, where the mode of expression is popular. (2) The sup- 
position that they were assembled in the temple is not required by the 
great multitude of those that flocked together, ver. 6. The private house 
may have been in the neighbourhood of the temple; but not even 
this supposition is necessary, considering the miraculous character of the 
occurrence. (3) It is true that, according to Joseph. Antt. viii. 3. 2, the 
principal building of the temple had thirty halls built around it, which he 
calls oixovs ; but could Luke suppose Theophilus possessed of this special 
knowledge? ‘But,’ it is said, (4) ‘‘the solemn inauguration of the 
church of Christ then presents itself with imposing effect in the sanctuary 
of the old covenant,’’ Olshausen ; ‘‘ the new spiritual temple must have... 
proceeded from the envelope of the old temple,’’ Lange. But this locality 
would need first to be proved! If this inauguration did not take place in 


1 Comp. mvedua Biacov, Arrian. Exp. Al. ii. marks: “Sonus venti vehementis, sed absque 
6. 3; Pausan. x. 17. 11. vento; sic etiam linguaeigneae, sed absque 
2 Comp. Neander, p. 14. Lightfoot aptly re- igne.’”” Comp. Hom. Od. vi. 20. 


44 CHAP. IL, 1-3. 


the temple, with the same warrant there might be seen in this an equally 
imposing indication of the entire severance of the new theocracy from the 
old. Yet Luke has indicated neither the one nor the other idea, and it is 
not till ii. 44 that the visit to the temple emerges in his narrative.— 
Kaiser’ infers from joav . . . él ro airé, ver. 1, as well as from oikos, 
kaßnevor, ov ushvovow, ver 15, etc., that this Christian private assembly, at the 
first feast of Pentecost, had for its object the celebration of the Agapae.? An 
interpretation arbitrarily put into the words. The sacredness of the festival 
was in itself a sufficient reason for their assembling, especially considering 
the deeply excited state of feeling in which they were, and the promise 
which was given to the apostles for so near a realization. — oÜ joav ka eLöue- 
vot] where, that is, in which they were sitting. We have to conceive those 
assembled, ere yet the hour of prayer (ver. 15) had arrived (for in prayer 
they stood), sitting at the feet of the teachers. 

Ver. 3. After the audible onueiov immediately follows the visible. Incor- 
rectly Luther : “there were seen on them the tongues divided as if they were 
of fire.’ ? The words mean: There appeared to them, i.e. there were seen 
by them, tongues becoming distributed, füre-like, i.e. tongues which appeared like 
little flames of fire, and were distributed (ii. 45 ; Luke xxii. 17, xxiii. 34) 
upon those present ; see the following &xadıoe x.7.A. They were thus ap- 
pearances of tongues, which were luminous, but did not burn : not really 
consisting of fire, but only dcei zupés ; and not confluent into one, but dis- 
tributing themselves severally on the assembled. As only similar to fire, 
they bore an analogy to electric phenomena ; their tongue-shape referred as a 
cnueov to that miraculous AaAeiv which ensued immediately after, and the 
Jire-like form to the divine presence (comp. Ex. iii. 2), which was here 
operative in a manner so entirely peculiar. The whole phenomenon is to 
be understood as a miraculous operation of God manifesting Himself in the 
Spirit, by which, as by the preceding sound from heaven, the effusion of the 
Spirit was made known as divine, and His efficacy on the minds of those 
who were to receive Him was enhanced. A more special physiological 
definition of the onueia, vv. 2, 3, is impossible. Lange,* fancifully supposes 
that the noise of the wind was a streaming of the heavenly powers from 
above, audible to the opened visionary sense, and that the tongues of fire 
were a disengaging of the solar fire-power of the earth and its atmo- 
sphere (?). The attempts, also, to convert this appearance of fire-like 
tongues into an accidental electric natural oceurrence (Paulus, Thiess, and 
others) are in vain ; for these flames, which make their appearance, during 
an accumulation of electric matter, on towers, masts, and even on men, 
present far too weak resemblances ; and besides, the room of a house, 
where the phenomenon exelusively occurred, was altogether unsuited for 
any such natural development. The representation of the text is mon- 
strously altered by Heinrichs: Fulgura cellam vere pervadebant, sed in 


1 Commentat. 1820, pp. 3-23; comp. bidl. 3 Therefore the expression is not to be ex- 
Theol. II. p. 41. plained from Isa. v. 24, for there WN Ww is 

2 Comp. Augusti, Denkwiirdigkeiten aus der arepresentation of that which consumes. 
christl. Arch. 1V. p. 124. 4 Apost. Zeitalt. II. p. 19. 


GIFT OF TONGUES. 45 


inusitatas imagines ea effinxit apostolorum commota mens; as also by Hen- 
mann: that they believed that they saw the fiery tongues merely in the 
estatic state ; and not less so by Eichhorn, who says that ‘‘ they saw flames 
signifies in rabbinical wsus loguendi: they were transported into ecstatic 
excitement. The passages adduced by Eichhorn from Schoettgen contain 
no merely figurative modes of expression, but fancies of the later Rabbins 
to be understood literally in imitation of the phenomena at Sinui,—of 
which phenomena, we may add, a real historical analogue is to be 
recognised in our passage. — &xädıce re] namely, not an indefinite subject, 
something,’ but such a yAwooa aoei rvpos. If Luke had written exadıoav (see 
the critical remarks), the notion that one yAöcca sat upon each would not 
have been definitely expressed.” Oecumenius, Beza, Castalio, Schoettgen, 
Kuinoel, incorrectly take zip as the subject, since, in fact, there was no 
fire at all, but only something resembling fire ; ö0e) tupés serves only for 
comparison, and consequently zip cannot be the subject of the continued 
narrative. Others, as Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther, Calvin, Wolf, 
Bengel, Heinrichs et al., consider the rveüua dyrov as subject. In that case 
it would have to be interpreted, with Fritzsche, Conject. I. p. 13 ; kadioavros 
ég’ Eva Exaorov aita? Eminoßmoav üravres rvevuaTos dyiov, and Matt. xvi. 18 
would be similar. Very harsh, seeing that the rveöua äyıov, in so far as it 
sat on the assembled, would appear as identical with its symbol, the fiery 
tongues ; but in so far as it ‚filled the assembled, as the rverwa itself, differ- 
ent from the symbo].—Theté joining on to the preceding (Lachm. reads xaé, 
following insufficient testimony) connects &xuüdıoe «7.2. with d@yoav «.r.A. 
into an unity, so that the description divides itself into the three acts: 
OpOnoay K.r.A., EmAnodnoav, k.7.A., and #psavto Kr.A., as is marked by the thrice 
recurring kai. 

Ver. 4. After this external phenomenon, there now ensued the infernal 
filling of all who were assembled,* without exception (é72. dxartes, comp. 
ver. 1), with the Holy Spirit, of which the immediate result was, that they, 
and, indeed, these same dravres (comp. iv. 31)—accordingly not excluding 
the apostles (in opposition to van Hengel)—np$avro Aakeiv érepars yAwooats, 
Earlier cases of being filled with the Spirit * are related to the present as 
the momentary, partial, and typical, to the permanent, complete, and anti- 
typical, such as could only occur after the glorifying of Jesus ; see ver. 33 ; 
John xvi. 7, vii. 39. — %p£avro] brings into prominence the primus impetus 
of the act as its most remarkable element. — AaZeiv Er&paıs yAdooas| For the 
sure determination of what Luke meant by this, it is decisive that érépacs 
yAdéooas on the part of the speakers was, in point of fact, the same thing 
which the congregated Parthians, Medes, Elamites, etc., designated as 
TaiS juerepaıs yAwooas (comp. ver. 8: rq idia diakéxto jucv). The érepac 
yAöccaı (K) therefore are, according to the text, to be considered as abso- 
lutely nothing else than languages, which were different from the native 





1 Hildebrand, comp. Buttm. newt. Gr. p. mavres, kai amootöAwv OyTwy Exel, ei un Kal oi 

118 (E. T. 134). &AAoı peterxov. See also van Hengel, p. 54 ff. 
2 Comp. Winer, p. 481 (E. T. 648). 4 Luke i. 41, 47; John xx. 22; comp. also 
3 Chrysostom well remarks: ovx av elite Luke ix. 55. 


46 CHAP TI, 


language of the speakers. They, the Galileans, spoke, one Parthian, an- 
other Median, etc., consequently languages of another sort,’ i.e. foreign, 
1 Cor. xiv. 21; and these indeed—the point wherein precisely appeared 
the miraculous operation of the Spirit-—not acquired by study (yRécous 
kawvais, Mark xvi. 17). / Accordingly the text itself determines the mean- 
ing of yAdooat as languages, not tongues, as van Hengel again assumes on 
the basis of ver. 3, where, however, the tongues have only the symbolic 
destination of a divine onyeov? ; and thereby excludes the various other 
explanations, and in particular those which start from the meaning verba 
obsoleta et poetica.* This remark holds good (1) of the interpretation of 
Herder,‘ that new modes of interpreting the ancient prophets were meant ; 
(2) against Heinrichs, who’ founds on that assumed meaning of yAöcoaı 
his explanation of enthusiastic speaking in languages which were foreign 
indeed, different from the sacred language, but were the native languages 
of the speakers ; (3) against Bleek.° The latter explains yAdoca: as glosses, 
i.e, unusual, antiquated poetical and provincial expressions. According 
to him, we are not to think of a connected speaking in foreign languages, 
but of a speaking in expressions which were foreign to the language of 
common life, and in which there was an approximation to a highly poetical 
phraseology, yet so that these glosses were borrowed from different 
dialects and languages (therefore érépas). Against this explanation of the 
yAccoaı, which is supported by Bleek with much erudition, the wsus 
loquendi is already decisive. For yAöco« in that sense is a grammatico- 
technical expression, or at least an expression borrowed from grammarians, 
which is only as such philologically beyond dispute.” But this meaning 
is entirely unknown to ordinary linguistic usage, and particularly to that 
of the O. and N. T. How should Luke have hit upon the use of such a 
singular expression for a thing, which he could easily designate by words 
universally intelligible ? How could he put this expression even into the 
mouths of the Parthians, Medes, Elamites, etc. ? For juerépars yAdooars, ver. 
11, must be explained in a manner ertirely corresponding to this. Further, 
there would result for nueripa:s a Wholly absurd meaning. jjérepar yAdooat, 
forsooth, would be nothing else than glosses, obsolete expressions, which 
are peculiar only to the Parthians, or to the Medes, or to the Elamites, 
etc., just as the "Arrixai yAdooa of Theodorus® are provincialisms of Attica, 
which were not current among the rest of the Greeks. Finally, it is fur- 
ther decisive against Bleek that, according to his explanation of yAdooa 


1 Luke ix. 29; Mark xvi. 13; Gal. i. 6. 8; Pollux. ii. 4; Plut. Pyth. orac. 24; and see 
Giese, Aeol. Dial. p. 42 ff. 

4 Von d. Gabe der Sprachen am ersten christl. 
Pfingstf., Riga, 1794. 

5After A. G. Meyer, de charismate av 
yAwoowv, etc., Hannov. 1797. 

6 In the Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p.33 ff., 1830, p. 
45 fl. 

7 See all the passages in Bleek, p. 33 ff., and 
alreädyin A. G. Meyer, l.c.; Fritzsche, ad 

3 Galen, exeg. glossar. Hippocr. Prooem.; Marc. p. 741. 
Aristot. Ars poet. 21. 4 ff., 22.3 f.; Quinctil. i. € In Athen. xiv. p. 646 c, p. 1437, ed. Dindorf. 


2 Van Hengel understands, according to ver. 
3, by Erepaı yA., ‘‘ tongues of fire, which the 
believers in Jesus have obtained through their 
communion with the Holy Spirit.” That is, 
“an open-hearted and loud speaking to the 
glorifying of God in Christ,‘ such as had not 
been done before. Previously their tongues 
had been without fire. 


GIFT OF TONGUES. 4% 


transferred also to 1 Cor. xii. 14, no sense is left for the singular term 
yAuoon Aakeiv ; for yAdooa could uot denote genus locutionis glossematicum,' 
but simply a single gloss, | As Bleek’s explanation falls to the ground, so 
must every other which takes yAöocar in any other sense than languages, 
which it must mean according to vv. 6, 8, 11. This remark holds par- 
ticularly (4) against the understanding of the matter by van Hengel, 
according to whom the assembled followers of Jesus spoke with other 
tongues than those with which they formerly spoke, namely, in the excite- 
ment of a fiery inspiration, but still all of them in Aramaic, so that each 
of those who came together heard the language of his.own ancestral wor- 
ship from the mouth of these Galileans, ver. 6. 

From what has been already said, and at the same time from the express 
contrast in which the list of nations (vv. 9-11) stands with the question 
ook od nävres . . . TadcAaior (ver, 7), it results beyond all doubt that Luke 
intended to narrate nothing else than this : the persons possessed by the Spirit 
began to speak in languages which were foreign to their nationality instead of 
their mother-tongue, namely, in the languages of other nations,* the knowledge 
and use of which were previously wanting to them, and were only now communi- 
cated in and with the rvenua üyıov.” The author of Mark xvi. 17 has correctly 
understood the expression of Luke, when, in reference to our narrative, he 
wrote kawvais instead of érépars. The explanation of foreign languages has 
been since the days of Origen that of most of the Church Fathers and 
expositors ; but the monstrous extension of this view formerly prevalent, 
to the effect that the inspired received the gift of speaking all the lan- 
quages of the earth,* and that for the purpose of enabling them to proclaim 
the gospel to all nations, is unwarranted. “Poena linguarum dispersit 
homines : donum linguarum dispersos in unum populum collegit,’’ Grotius. 
Of this the text knows nothing; it leaves it, on the contrary, entirely 
undetermined whether, over and above the languages specially mentioned 
in vv. 9-11, any others were spoken. For the preaching of the gospel in 
the apostolic age this alleged gift of languages was partly unnecessary, as 
the preachers needed only to be able to speak Hebrew and Greek,*® and 
partly too general, as among the assembled there were certainly very many 
who did not enter upon the vocation of teacher. And, on the other 
hand, such a gift would also have been premature, since Paul, the apostle 
of the Gentiles, would, above all, have needed it ; and yet in his case there 
is no trace of its subsequent reception, just as there is no evidence of his 
having preached in any other language than Hebrew and Greek (k). 

But how is the occurrence to be judged of historically? On this the 


1 kts yAwoonpanky, Dionys. Hal. de Thuc. 277 ff. ; Milville, Obss. theol. exeg. de dono 
M. linguar. Basil. 1816. See also Schaff, Gesch. 

2Comp., besides 1 Cor. xiv.21,Ecclus.praef.: d. apost. K. p. 201 ff., ed. 2; Ch. F. Fritzsche, 
örav nerax@n (the Hebrew) eis erepav yA@ooav Nova opusc. p. 304 f. 


(Leo, Tact. 4. 49: yAdaaars Staddpors Aakeır) ; 4 Augustin.: “coeperunt loqui linguis om- 
also Aesch. Sept. 171: moAıv dopimovov un mpoöo0” nium gentium.” 

Erepobwvw orparo. Not different is Pind. Pyth. 5 Comp. Schneckenb. neutest. Zeitgesch. p. 
Zi. 43: aAAorpiaıaı yAwooats. 17 ff. 


3 Comp. Storr, Opusc. II. p. 290 ff., III. p. 


48 CHAP. II., 4. 


following points are to be observed: (1) Since the sudden communi- 
cation of a facility of speaking foreign languages is neither logi- 
cally possible nor psychologically and morally conceivable, and since 
in the case of the apostles not the slightest indication of it is per- 
ceptible in their letters or otherwise (comp., on the contrary, xiv. 
11); since further, if it is to be assumed as having been only 
momentary, the impossibility is even increased, and since Peter him- 
self in his address makes not even the slightest allusion to the foreign 
languages,—the event, as Luke narrates it, cannot be presented in the 
actual form of its historical occurrence, whether we regard that Pentecostal 
assembly (without any indication to that effect in the text) as a representa- 
tion of the entire future Christian body (Baumgarten) or not. (2) The 
analogy of magnetism,‘ is entirely foreign to the point, especially as those 
possessed by the Spirit were already speaking in foreign languages, when 
the Parthians, Medes, etc., came up, so that anything corresponding to the 
magnetic ‘‘rapport’’ is not conceivable. (3) If the event is alleged to 
have taken place, as it is narrated, with a view to the representation of an 
idea,* and that, indeed, only at the time and without leaving behind a per- 
manent facility of speaking languages, ‘‘in order to represent and to attest, 
in germ and symbol, the future gathering of the elect out of all nations, 
the consecration of their languages in the church, and again the holiness of 
the church in the use of these profane idioms, as also of what is natural 
generally,’’ ° such a view is nothing else than a gratuitously-imported sub- 
jective abstraction of fancy, which leaves the point of the impossibility and 
the non-historical character of the occurrence entirely unsettled, although 
it arbitrarily falls back upon the Babylonian confusion of tongues as its 
corresponding historical type. This remark also applies against Lange, * 
according to whose fanciful notion the original language of the inner life by 
which men’s minds are united has here reached its fairest manifestation. 
This Pentecostal language, he holds, still pervades the church as the 
language of the inmost life in God, as the language of the Bible, glorified 
by the gospel, and as the leaven of all Janguages, which effects their re- 
generation into the language of the Spirit. (4) Nevertheless, the state of 
the fact can in nowise be reduced to a speaking of the persons assembled 
in their mother-tongues, so that the speakers would have been no native 
Galileans ; ° along with which David Schulz® explains érépars yAoooaıs even 
of other kinds of singing praise, which found utterance in the provincial 
dialects contrary to their custom and ability at other times. Thus the very 
essence of the narrative, the miraculous nature of the phenomenon, is swept 
away, and there is not even left. matter of surprise fitted to give sufficient 


1 Adduced especially by Olshausen, and by 
Baeumlein in the Wiirtemb. Stud. VI. 2, p. 118. 

2Comp. Augustine, serm. 9: Loquebatur 
enim tune unus homo omnibus linguis, quia 
locutura erat nnitas ecclesiae in omnibus 
linguis. 

3 Rossteuscher, Gabe der Sprachen, Marb. 
1850, p. 9. 


4 Apost. Zeitalt. II. p. 22 ff. 

5 Paulus, Eichhorn, Schulthess, de cha- 
rismatib. sp. s., Lips. 1818, Kuinoel, Heinrichs, 
Fritzsche, Schrader, and others. 

6 d. Geistesgaben d ersten Christen, Breslau, 
1836. 


GIFT OF TONGUES. 49 


occasion for the astonishment and its expressions, if we do not, with 
Thiess, resort even to the hypothesis that the speakers had only used the 
Aramaic dialects instead of the Galilean. Every resolution of the matter 
into a speaking of native languages is directly against the nature and the 
words of the narrative, and therefore unwarranted. (5) Equally unwar- 
ranted, moreover, is the conversion, utterly in the face of the narrative, of 
the miracle of tongues into a miracle of hearing, so that those assembled did 
not, indeed, speak in any foreign tongue, but the foreigners listening 
believed that they heard their own native languages. Sce against this 
view, Castalio in loc., and Beza on x. 46. This opinion—which Billroth on 
1 Cor. strangely outbids by his fancy of a primeval language which had 
been spoken—is already represented by Gregory of Nazianzus, Orat. 44, as 
allowable by the punctuation of ii. 6; is found thereafter in the Pseudo- 
Cyprian (Arnold), in the appendix to the Opp. Cypr. p. 60, ed. Brem. (p. 
475, ed. Basil. 1530), in Beda, Erasmus, and others ; and has recently been 
advocated especially by Schneckenburger ;* legend also presents later 
analogous phenomena—in the life of Francis Xavier and others. (6) The 
miraculous gift of languages remains the centre of the entire narrative,” 
and may in nowise be put aside or placed in the background, if the 
state of the fact is to be derived entirely from this narrative. If we 
further compare x. 46, 47, the xa%0s «al jueis in that passage shows that the | 
Aadrsiv yAvooaıs, which there occurred at the descent of the Spirit on those 
assembled, cannot have been anything essentially different from the event 
in Actsii. A corresponding judgment must in that case be formed as to xix. 
6. But we have to take our views of what the yAdooas Aareiv really was, 
not from our passage, but from the older and absolutely authentic account 
of Paul in 1 Cor. xii. 14 : according to which it (see comm. on 1 Cor. xii. 
10) was a speaking in the form of prayer—which took place in the highest 
ecstasy, and required an interpretation for its understanding—and not a 
speaking in foreign Janguages. The occurrence in Acts ii. is therefore to 
be recognised, according to its historical import, as the phenomenon of the 
glossolalia (not as a higher stage of it, in which the foreign languages super- 
vened, Olshausen), which emerged for the first time in the Christian church, 
and that immediately on the effusion of the Spirit at Pentecost,—a phe- 
nomenon which, in the sphere of the marvellous to which it belongs, was 
elaborated and embellished by legend into a speaking in foreign languages, 
and accordingly into an occurrence quite unique, not indeed as to sub- 
stance, but as to mode,* and far surpassing the subsequently frequent and 
well-known glossolalia, having in fact no parallel in the further history of 
the church.‘ How this transformation—the supposition of which is by 





1 Beitr. p. 84; comp. wb. den Zweck d. 4 The conclusion of Wieseler (Stud. u. Krit, 
Apostelgesch. p. 202 ff; Svenson also, in the 1869, p. 118), that Luke, who, as a companion 
Zeitschr. f. Luih. Th. u. K. 1859, p. 1 f£., of Paul, must have been well acquainted with 
arrives at the result of a miracle of hearing. the glossolalia, could not have represented it 

2 See Ch. F. Fritzsche, nova opusc. p. 309 ff.; asaspeaking in foreign languages, is incor- 
Zeller, p. 104 ff.; Hilgenf. d. Glossolalie, p. rect. Luke, in fact, conceives and describes 
87 ff. ; the Pentecostal miracle nof as the glossolalia, 

3 Comp. Hilgenfeld, p. 146. which was certainly well known to him, as it 


50 CHAP. II, 4. 


no means to be treated with suspicion as the dogmatic caprice of unbelief 
(in opposition to Rossteuscher, p. 125) —took place, cannot be ascertained. 
But the supposition very naturally suggests itself, that among the persons 
possessed by the Spirit, who were for the most part Galileans (in the elabo- 
rated legend ; all of them Galileans), there were also some foreigners, and 
that among these very naturally the utterances of the Spirit in the glossola- 
lia found vent in expressions of their different national languages, and not 
in the Aramaic dialect, which was to them by nature a foreign language, and 
therefore not natural or suitable for the outburst of inspired ecstasy. If 
this first glossolalia actually took place in different languages, we can ex- 
plain how the legend gradually gave to the occurrence the form which it 
has in Luke, even with the list of nations, which specifies more particular- 
ly the languages spoken. That a symbolical view of the phenomenon has 
occasioned the formation of the legend, namely, the idea of doing away 
with the diversity of languages which arose, Gen. xi., by way of punish- 
ment, according to which idea there was to be again in the Messianic 
time eis Aaös Kupiov Kai yAdooa pia’ is not to be assumed (Schnecken- 
burger, Rossteuscher, de Wette), since this idea as respects the yAdéoca pia, 
is not a N. T. one, and it would suit not the miracle of speaking, such as 
the matter appears in our narrative, but a miracle of hearing, such as it has 
been interpreted to mean. The general idea of the universal destination of 
Christianity * cannot but have been favourable to the shaping of the occur- 
rence in the form in which it appears in our passage. 

The view which regards our event as essentially identical with the glossolalia, 
but does not conceive the latter as a speaking in foreign languages, has been 
adopted by Bleek * whose explanation, however, of highly poetical discourse, 
combined with foreign expressions, agrees neither with the érép. yA. generally 
nor with vv. 8 and 11; by Baur,* who, however, explains on this account 
érép, yA. as new spirit-tongues,® and regarded this expression as the original 
one, but subsequently,° amidst a mixing up of different opinions, has acced- 
ed to the view of Bleek; by Steudel,? who explains the Pentecostal event , 
from the corresponding tone of feeling which the inspired address encoun- 
tered in others,—a view which does not at all suit the concourse of foreign 
unbelievers in our passage; by Neander, who, however,* idealizes the 
speaking of inspiration in our passage too indefinitely and indistinctly ; 


was a frequent gift in the apostolic age, but 
as a quite extraordinary occurrence, such as 
it had been presented to him by tradition ; 
and in doing so, he is perfectly conscious of 
the déstinclion between it and the speaking 
with tongues, which he knew by experience. 
With justice Holtzmann also (in Herzog’s 
Encyk!, XVIIT. p. 689) sees in our narrative a 
later legendary formation, but from a time 
which was no longer familar with the nature 
of the glossolalia. Thislatter statement is not 
to be conceded, partly because Luke wrote 
£0on after the destruction of Jerusalem, and 
the source which he here made use of must 
have been still older ; and partly because he 
was a friend of Paul, and as such could not 


have been otherwise than familiar with the 
nature of that xdpicua, which the apostle 
himself richly possessed. 

1 Test. XII. Patr. p. 618. 

2 Comp. Zeller, Hilgenfeld. 

3 In the Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 50 ff. 

4In the vib. Zeitschr. 1830, 2. p. 101 ff. 

5 Which the Spirit has created for Himself 
as His organs, different from the usual human 
tongues. See also in his newtest. Theol. p. 
323 f. 

6 In the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 618 ff. 

"In the Tüb. Zeitschr. 1830, 2, p. 133 f£., 
1831, 2, p. 128 ff. 

8 4th edition, p. 28. 


GIFT OF TONGUES. 51 


by Wieseler,' who makes the épunveia yAwoodv be described according to the 
impression made upon the assembled Jews,—an idea irreconcilable with 
our text (vv. 6-12); by de Wette, who ascribes the transformation of 
the glossolalia in our passage to a reporter, who from want of knowl- 
edge, imported into the traditional facts a symbolical meaning ; by 
Hilgenfeld, according to whom the author conceived the gift of languages 
as a special y&vos of speaking with tongues; by van Hengel, who sees 
in the Corinthian glossolalia a degenerating of the original fact in our 
passage ; and by Ewald,” who represents the matter as the first outburst 
of the infinite vigour of life and pleasure in life of the new-born Chris- 
tianity, which took place not in words, songs, and prayers previously 
used, nor generally in previous human speech and language, but, as it 
were, in a sudden conflux and moulding-anew of all previous languages, 
amidst which the synonymous expressions of different languages were, in 
the surging of excitement, crowded and conglomerated, etc.,—a view in 
which the appeal to the 48d 6 marıp and papdv a6é is much too weak to 
do justice to the érépas yAuccaıs as the proper point of the narrative. On 


the other hand, the view of the Pentecostal miracle as an actual though | 


only temporary speaking in unacquired foreign languages, such as Luke 
represents it, has been maintained down to the most recent times,’ a 
conception which Hofmann * supports by the significance of Pentecost as 
the feast of the first fruits, and Baumgarten, at the same time, by its 
reference to the giving of the law. But by its side the procedure of 
the other extreme, by which the Pentecostal occurrence is entirely banished 
from history,° has been carried out in the boldest and most decided 
manner by Zeller (p. 104 ff.), to whom the origin of the narrative appears 
quite capable of explanation from dogmatic motives—according to the idea of 
the destination of Christianity for all nations—and typical views.° — kaßos, 
as, in which manner, i.e. according to the context, in which foreign lan- 
guage, — az0gIéyyeo9ar| elogui,’ a purposely chosen word ® for loud utterance 
in the elevated state of spiritual gifts.° 


1 In the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 743 ff., 1860, 
p. 117. 

2 Gesch. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 123 ff., comp. 
Jahrb. III. p. 269 ff. 

3 Baeumlein in the Würtemb. Stud. 1834, 2, 
p. 40 ff. ; Bauer in the Stud. u. Krit, 1843, p. 
658 ff., 1844, p. 708 ff.; Zinsler, de charism. 
Tod yA Aad. 1847; Engelmann, v. d. Charis- 
men, 1850; Maier, d. Giossalie d. apost. Zeit- 
alt. 1855 ; Thiersch, Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. 
p. 67; Rossteuscher, Baumgarten, Lechler ; 
comp. also Kahnis, vom heil. Geiste, p. 61 ff., 
Dogmat. I. p. 517, Schaff, and others. 

4 Weissag. u. Erf. II. p. 206 fl. 

5 Weisse, evang. Gesch. II. p. 417 ff., identi- 
fies the matter even with the appearance of 
the risen Christ to more than 500 brethren, re- 
corded in 1 Cor. xv.6!--Gfrörer, Gesch. d. 
Urehr. I. 2, p. 397 f., derives the origin of the 
Pentecostal history in our passage from the 
Jewish tradition of the feast of Pentecost as 


the festival of the law, urging the mythi- 
cal miracle of tongues on Sinai (comp. also 
Schneckenburger, p. 202 ff.). 

6 Comp. also Baur, who finds here Paul’s 
idea of the Aadeiv tats yAwooats Tov avOpwrwv 
Kal Tav ayyeAwr, 1 Cor. xiii. 1, converted into 
reality. According to Baur, neutest. Theol. p. 
322, there remains to us as the proper nucleus 
of the matter only the conviction, which be- 
came to the. disciples and first Christians a 
Fact of their consciousness, that the same Spirit 
by whom Jesus was qualified to be the Messiah 
had also been imparted to them, and was the 
specific principle — determining the Christian 
consciousness—of their fellowship. This com- 
munication of the Spirit did not, in his view, 
even occur at a definite point of time. 

7 Lucian, Zeux. 1, Paras. 4, Plut. Mor. p. 
405 E, Diog. L. i. 63. 

8 Comp. ii. 14, xxvi. 25. 

® 1 Chron. xxv. 1; Ecclus. Prolog. ii.; comp. 


52 CHAP, II., 5, 6. 


Ver. 5 gives, as introductory to what follows, preliminary information how 
it happened that Jews of so very diversified nationality were witnesses of 
the occurrence, and heard their mother-languages spoken by the inspired. 
Stolz, Paulus, and Heinrichs are entirely in error in supposing that ver. 
5 refers to the Aateiv érép. yA., and that the sense is: ‘‘Neque id secus 
quam par erat, nam ex pluribus nationibus diverse loquentibus intererant 
isti coetui homines,’’ etc. The context, in fact, distinguishes the ’lovdaioe 
and the TadAaioe (so designated not as a sect, but according to their 
nationality), clearly in such a way that the former are members of the nation 
generally, and the latter are specially and exclusively Galileans.’ — joav 
.« « Katoixovvtes| they were dwelling, is not to be taken of mere temporary 
residence,” but of the domicile * which they had taken up in the central 
city of the theocracy, and that from conscientious religious feelings as 
Israelites (hence evAaGeiS, comp. on Luke ii. 25). Comp. Chrys.: 70 karoıkeiv 
ebAaBeias mv omueiov THS; aT ToooüTwv yap EAvav dvTES Kal marpidas adevres 
2.2. GKovv éxei,— Tov rd Tdv obpav.] sc. E8vav, of the nations to be found under 
heaven (Bernhardy). —%76 röv ovpavér is classical, like i76 röv 7Aıov.* The 
whole expression has something solemn about it, and is, as a popular 
hyperbole, to be left in all its generality. Comp. Deut. ii. 25; Col. i. 28. 

Ver. 6. Tie dovnc raurnc] this sound, which, inasmuch as ovdtoc points back 
to a more remote noun, is to be referred to the wind-like rushing of ver. 2, to 
which also yevou. carries us back. Comp. John iii. 8. Luke represents the 
matter in such a way that this noise sounded forth from the house of meet- 
ing to the street, and that thereby the multitude were induced to come 
thither. In this case neither an earthquake (Neander) nor a ‘‘sympathy of 
the susceptible’’ (Lange) are to be called in to help, because there is no 
mention of either ; in fact, the wonderful character of the noise is sufficient. 
Others, as Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Bleek, Schulz, Wieseler, Hilgenfeld, think 
that the loud speaking of the inspired is here meant. But in that case we 
should expect the plural, especially as this speaking occurred in different 
languages ; and besides, we should be obliged to conceive this speaking as 
being strong, like a crying, which is not indicated in ver. 4; therefore 
Wieseler would have it taken only as a definition of time, which the aorist 
does not suit, because the speaking continues. Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, 
Castalio, Vatablus, Grotius, Heumann, and Schulthess take gwv/ in the sense 
of nun. Contrary to the wsus loguendi; even in Gen. xlv. 16 it is other- 
wise. — ovvexößn] mente confusa est (Vulgate), was perplexed.* — eic Exaoroc] 
annexes to the more indefinite jkovov the exact statement of the subject.° — 
dtartkro] is here also not national language, but dialect (see on i. 19), lan- 
guage in its provincial peculiarity. It is, as well as in ver. 8, designedly 


amobdeyna, Deut. xxxii. 2, also Zech, x. 2; also 4 Comp. Plat. Zp. p. 326 C, Tim. p. 23 C. 
of false prophets, Ezek. xiii. 19 ; Mich. v. 12. 5 Comp. ix. 22; 1 Macc. iv. 27; 2 Macc. x. 
See, generally, Schleusner, 7hes. I. p. 417; 30 ; Herod. viii. 99; Plat. Hp. 7, p. 346 D; 
also Valckenaer, p. 344; and van Hengel. p. 40. Diod. S. iv. 62 ; Lucian. Wigr. 31. 
1 See also van Hengel, p. 9. ° Comp. John xvi. 32; Acts xi. 29 al.; Jacobs, 
2 Kuinoel, Olshausen, and others. ad Achill. Tat. p. 622; Ameis on Hom. Od. 
53 Luke xiii.4; Acts. vii. 48, ix. 22, al.; x. 397; Bernhardy, p. 420. 
Piat. Legg. ii. p. 666 E, xii. p. 969 C. 


EFFECTS OF THE MIRACLE. 53 


chosen, because the foreigners who arrived spoke not entirely different lan- 
guages, but in part only different dialects of the same language. Thus, for 
example, the Asiatics, Phrygians, and Pamphylians, respectively spoke 
Greek, but in different idioms; the Parthians, Medes, and Elamites, Per- 
sian, but also in different provincial forms. Therefore, the persons pos- 
sessed by the Spirit, according to the representation of the text, expressed 
themselves in the peculiar local dialects of the érépwv yAwoodv. The view 
that the Aramaic dialect was that in which all the speakers spoke (van 
Hengel), appears—from ver. 8; from the list of nations, which would be 
destitute of significance ; from rpoonAvro: (ver. 10), which would be mean- 
ingless ; and from ver. 11,’ as well as from the opinions expressed in vv. 
12, 13, which would be without a motive—as an exegetical impossibility, 
which is also already excluded by eic &xaoroc in ver. 6. — Aarovvrwv aitav] 
- not, of course, that all spoke in all dialects, but that one spoke in one 
dialect, and another in another. Each of those who came together heard 
his peculiar dialect spoken by one or some of the inspired. This remark 
applies in opposition to Bleek, who objects to the common explanation of 
Aareiv Er£p. yAdooac, that each individual must have spoken in the different 
languages simultaneously. The expression is not even awkward (Olshausen), 
as it expresses the opinion of the people comprehended generally, and con- 
sequently even the summary airév is quite in order. 

Vv. 7, 8. ’E£ioravro denotes the astonishment now setting in after the first 
perplexity, ver. 6; éaiuafov is the continuing wonder resulting from it. 
Comp. Mark vi. 51.—idoi| to be enclosed within two commas. — rävrec 
ovro K.r.A.]| pointing out : all the speakers present. It does not distinguish 
two kinds of persons, those who spoke and those who did not speak (van 
Hengel) ; but see ver. 4. The dislocation occasioned by the interposition 
of eioiv brings the zdvrec oitoe into more emphatic prominence. — TaAıAaior] 
They wondered to hear men, who were pure Galileans, speak Parthian, 
Median, ete. This view, which takes Tad. in the sense of nationality, is 
required by vv. 8, 11, and by the contrast of the nations afterwards named. 
It is therefore foreign to the matter, with Herder, Heinrichs, Olshausen, 
Schulz, Rossteuscher, van Hengel, and older commentators, to bring into 
prominence the accessory idea of want of culture (uncultivated Galileans) ; 
and erroneous, with Stolz, Eichhorn, Kuinoel, and others, to consider Ta. 
as a designation of the Christian sect —a designation, evidence of which, 
moreover, can only be adduced from a later period.? It is erroneous, also, 
to find the cause of wonder in the circumstance that the Galileans should 
have used profane languages for so holy an object (Kuinoel). So, in opposi- 
tion to this, Ch. F. Fritzsche, nova opuse. p. 310. —xa? wdc] kai, as a simple 
and, annexes the sequence of the sense; and (as they are all Galileans) 
how happens it that, etc. —ijueic axobomev Exactog x.7.2.] we on our part (in con- 
trast to the speaking Galileans) ear each one, etc. That, accordingly, 
éyevv7. is to be understood distributively, is self-evident from the connec- 


1 Where neither in itself nor according to own tongues. 
ver. 8 can rais nuerepaıs yAwooars mean what 2 Augusti, Denkwürd. IV. pp. 49, 5. 
van Hengel puts intoit: as we do with our 


54 cHAP. II., 9-11. 


tion (comp. raic juer. yAdooac, ver. 11); therefore van Hengel’ wrongly 
objects to the view of different languages, that the words would require to 
run : möc Hu. ak. T. id. dıak., &vn Exaoroc éyevvibn. — Ev 7 Eyevvnb.] designation 
of the mother-tongue, with which one is, in the popular way of expressing 
the matter, born furnished. 

Vv. 9-11. Tapdov . . . "Apaßec is amore exact statement, placed in apposi- 
tion, of the subject of &yevvjßnuev. After finishing the list, ver. 11, Luke again 
takes up the verb already used in ver. 8, and completes the sentence already 
there begun, but insuch a way as once more to bring forward the im- 
portant point 77 id/a diadéxrw, only in a different and more general expres- 
sion, by raic nuer. yAoooaıc. Instead, therefore, of simply writing Aadobyr. 
avr. Ta ueyaA. r. Ocov Without this resumption in ver. 11, he continues, after 
the list of nations, as if he had said in ver. 8 merely kat möc jueic. —The 
list of nations itself, which is arranged not without reference to geography, 
yet in a desultory manner east, north, south, west, is certainly genuine (in 
opposition to Ziegler, Schulthess. Kuinoel), but is, of course, not to be 
considered, at any rate in its present order and completeness, as an origi- 
nal constituent part of the speech of the people (which would be psycho- 


logically inappropriate to the lively expression of strong astonishment, but : 
as an historical notice, which was designedly interwoven in the speech and , 


put into the mouth of the people, either already in the source whence Luke 


drew, or by Luke himself, in order to give very strong prominence to the | 


contrast with the preceding TaArAaioı. —’EAauiza, on the Persian Gulf, are 
so named in the LXX. (Isa. xxi. 2); called by the Greeks ’EAvuaior.? — 
’Iovdaiav] There is a historical reason why Jews should be also mentioned in ı 
this list, which otherwise names none but foreigners. A portion of those 
who had received the Spirit spoke Jewish, so that even the native Jews’ 
heard their provincial dialect. 
yAéooac, because the Jewish dialect differed in pronunciation from the 
Galilean, although both belonged to the Aramaic language of the country 
at that time ; comp. on Matt. xxvi. 73. Heinrichs thinks that ’Iovdaiav is 
inappropriate (comp. de Wette), and was only included in this specifica- 
tion in fluxzu orationis ; while Olshausen holds that Luke included the 
mention of it from his Roman point of view, and in consideration of his 
Roman readers. What a high degree of carelessness would either sugges- 
tion involve!® Ewald guesses that Syria has dropped out after Judaea. — 
tiv ’ Aciav] is here, as it is mentioned along with individual Asiatic districts, 
not the whole of Asia Minor, nor yet simply Jonia (Kuinoel), or Lydia 
(Schneckenburger), to which there is no evidence that the name Asia was 
applied ; but the whole western coast-region of Asia Minor.* — ra uépy rjc Außung 


12.c.p.2Af.: ‘‘ How comes it that we, no one 
excepted, hear them speak in the mother-tongue 
of our own people?” Thus, in his view, we 
are to explain the passage as the words stand 
in the text, and thus there is designated only 
the one mother-tongue—the Aramaic. 

2See Polyb. v. 44. 9, al. The country is 
called "EAvrais, Pol. xxxi. 11.1; Strabo, xvi. 
p. 744, 


3 Tertull. c. Jud.%, read Armeniam. Con- 
jectural emendations are : "Idovmatay (Caspar 
Barth), ’Ivöiav (Erasmus Schmid), Bıdvviav 
(Hemsterhuis and Valckenaer). 

4 Caria, Lydia, Mysia, according to Plin. 
H. N. v.28; see Winer, Realw., Wieseler, p. 
32 ff. 


This is not at variance with the érépac : 


{ 


EFFECTS OF THE MIRACLE. 55 


tig Kata Kupnvrv] the districts of the Libya situated towards Cyrene, i.e. Libya 
Cyrenaica, or Pentapolitana, Upper Libya, whose capital was Cyrene, nearly 
one-fourth of the population of which were Jews.' So many of the Cyre- 
naean Jews dwelt in Jerusalem, that they had there a synagogue of their 
own (vi. 9). —oi éxidnuodvTec 'Pouaioı] the Romans — Jews dwelling in Rome 
and the Roman countries of the West generally — residing (here in Jerusalem) 
as strangers (pilgrims to the feast, or for other reasons).” As iriönuoüvrec, 
they are not properly included under the category of karoıkoövrec in the 
preparatory ver. 5, but are by zeugma annexed thereto, —'Iovdaioi re Kai 
mpoonAvro: is in apposition not merely to oi &rıd. "Puuaio: (Erasmus, Grotius, 
van Hengel, and others), but, as is alone in keeping with the universal aim of 
the list of nations, to all those mentioned before in vv. 9, 10. The native Jews 
(‘Iovdaior) heard the special Jewish local dialects, which were their mother- 
tongues ; the Gentile Jews (xpooj)vro.) heard their different non-Hebraic 
mother-tongues, and that likewise in the different idioms of the several 
nationalities. — Kprrec kai "Apaßec] are inaccurately brought in afterwards, 
as their proper position ought to have been before "Iovd. re kat zpoo72., be- 
cause that statement, in the view of the writer, held good of all the nationali- 
ties, —r. juerépare yAdooarc| quer. has the emphasis of contrast: not with 
their language, but with ours. Comp. ver. 8. That y/é0c. comprehends 
also the dialectic varieties serving as a demarcation, is self-evident from vv. 
6-10. The expression r. juer. yA. affirms substantially the same thing as was 
meant by érépare yAdooare in ver. 4. —ra peyadeia r. Ocov] the great things of 
God which God has done.’ It is the glorious things which God has pro- 
vided through Christ, as is self-evident in the case of that assembly in that 
condition. Not merely the resurrection of Christ (Grotius), but ‘‘tota huc 
oixovouia gratiae pertinet,’’ Calovius. Comp. x. 46. 

Vv. 12, 13. Acyrdp.] see on Luke ix. 7. — ri dv 02201 ovro eivaı ;] The 
optative with ay, in order to denote the hypothetically conceived possibility : 
What might this possibly wish to be? i.e. What might—if this speaking 
in our native languages, this strange phenomenon, is designed to have 
any meaning—to be thought of as that meaning?* On the distinction 
of the sense without av, see Kuhner, ad Xen. Anab. v. 
another class of judges, consequently none of the impartial, of whom 
there was mention in vv. 7-12, but hostile persons (in part, doubtless, of 
the hierarchical party) who drew from the well-known freer mode of life of 
Jesus and His disciples a judgment similar to Luke vii. 34, and decided 
against the disciples. — diayAevétovrec] mocking ; a stronger expression than 
the simple verb.° The scoffers explain the enthusiasm of the speakers, 


7. 33.° — érepor] 


1See Joseph. Anti. xiv. 7. 2. xvi. 6.1. See 
Schneckenbnrger, neutest. Zeitgesch. p. 88 ff. 

2On emiönu., as distinguished from xaroı- 
Koüvres, Comp. xvii. 21. Plat. Prof. p. 342 C: 
Eevos dv Emiönunon. Legg. viii. p. 8, 45 A; 
Dem. 1352. 19 ; Athen. viii. p. 361 F : ot "Pounv 
KaTOLKOUPTES Kal ol émtdnuodwTeEs TH TOAEL. 

3 Comp. Ps. Ixxi. 19; Ecclus, xvii. 8, xviii. 
8, xxxiii. 8 ; 3 Macc. vii. 22. 


4Comp. xvii. 18; Herm. ad Viger. p. 720; 
Bernhardy, p. 410 f. 

5 Comp. also Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 130. 
On 6cAev of impersonal things, see Wetstein 
and Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 370 B. 

6 Dem. 1221. 26; Plat. Aw. p. 364 B; Polyb. 
xvii. 4. 4, xxxix. 2. 13; used absolutely also, 
Polyb. xxx. 13. 12, 


56 CHAP. I, 14-17. 


which struck them as eccentric, and the use of foreign languages instead 
of the Galilean, as the effect of drunken excitement. Without disturbing 
themselves whence this foreign speaking, according to the historical posi- 
tion of the matter, this speaking with tongues, had come and become pos- 
sible to the Galileans, they are arrested only by the strangeness of the phe- 
nomenon as it struck the senses, and, in accordance with their own vulgarity, 
impute it to the having taken too much wine. Comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 23. The 
contents of the speaking (van Hengel) would not, apart from that form of 
utterance as if drunk with the Spirit, have given ground for so frivolous an 
opinion, but would rather have checked it. The judgment of Festus con- 
cerning Paul (xxvi. 24) is based on an essentially different situation. — 
yAebkovc] yAevKocg TO amöorayna THE orapvAjc piv marndn, Hesychius.* 

Vv. 14, 15. Zraßeic] as in v. 20, xvii. 22, xxvii. 21; Luke xix. 8, xviil. 
11. The introduction of the address (ke stood up, etc.) is solemn. — ovv Toig 
évdexa] thus Matthias is already included, and justly ; ver. 32, comp. with 
i, 22. We may add that Grotius aptly remarks (although contradicted by 
Calovius) : ‘‘ Hic incipit (Petrus) nominis sui a rupe dicti meritum implere.’’ 
— äreof.] as in ver. 4: but not as if now Peter also had begun to speak 
érépac yAoco. (van Hengel). That speaking is past when Peter and the 
eleven made their appearance ; and then follows the simple instruction re- 
garding it, intelligible to ordinary persons, uttered aloud and with empha- 
sis. — karoıkovvrec] quite as in ver. 5. The nominative with the article, in 
order to express the imperative address.* — rovro] namely, what I shall now 
explain to you. Concerning éverifectac (from otc), auribus pereipere, which 
is foreign to the old classical Greek, but in current use in the LXX. and 
the Apocrypha.* In the N. T. only here.* — ov yap] yap justifies the pre- 
ceding summons. The ovroı, these there, does not indicate that the apostles 
themselves were not among those who spoke in a miraculous manner, as if 
the gift of tongues had been a lower kind of inspired speech ;° but Peter, 
standing up with the eleven, places himself in the position of a third per- 
son, pointing to the whole multitude, whom he would defend, as their ad- 
vocate ; and as he did so, the reference of this apology to himself also and 
his fellow-apostles became self-evident in the application. This also ap- 
plies against van Hengel, p. 64 f. — dpa rpirn] about*nine in the morning ; 
so early in the day, and at this first of the three hours of prayer (see on ili. 
1), contemporaneously with the morning sacrifice in the temple, people are 
not drunk! Observe the sober, self-collected way in which Peter speaks. 

Vv. 16, 17. But this (which has just taken place on the part of those 
assembled, and has been accounted among you as the effect of drunken- 
ness) is the event, which is spoken of by the prophet Joel. — Joel iii. 1-5 (LXX. 
ii. 28-81) is freely quoted according to the LXX. The prophet, speaking 
as the organ of God, describes the oyueia which shall directly precede the 
dawn of the Messianic period, namely first the general effusion of the ful- 


1 Job xxxii. 19; Lucian. Zp. Sat. 22, Phi- 3 See Sturz, Dial. Al. p. 166. 
lops. 89. 65 ; Nic. Ad. 184. 299. Comp. yAev- 4Comp. Test. XII. Pair. p. 520. 
«omörns, Leon. Tar. 18; Apollonid. 10. 51 Cor. xiv. 18, 19; so de Wette, at variance 


2 See Bernhardy, p. 6%. with ver. 4. 


PETER’S DISCOURSE, 87 


ness of the Holy Spirit, and then frightful catastrophes in heaven and on 
earth. This prophecy, Peter says, has now entered upon its accomplish- 
ment. — kat écrac] and it will be the case: quite according to the Hebrew 
(and the LXX.) IM. The «ai in the prophetic passage connects it with 
what precedes, and is incorporated in the citation. — iv raic ösyäraıc Huépare | 
The LXX., agreeing with the Hebrew, has only pera raira. Peter has in- 
serted for it the familiar expression D’AI MINN (Isa. ii. 2; Mic. iv. 1, al.) 
by way of more precise definition, as Kimchi also gives it (see Lightfoot). 
This denotes the last days of the pre-Messianie period—the days immediately 
preceding the erection of the Messianic kingdom, which, according to the 
N. T. view, could not but take place by means of the speedily expected Parousia 
of Christ ; see 2 Tim. iii. 1; Jas. v. 3; and as regards the essential sense, 
also Heb. i. 1.'— éxyeo] a later form of the future.” The outpouring fig- 
uratively denotes the copious communication. Tit. iii. 6; Acts x. 45. Comp. 
i. 5, and see on Rom. v. 5. — azo rov mveunarog uov] deviating from the He- 
brew ‘MTS. The partitive expression (Bernhardy, p. 222) denotes that 
something of the Spirit of God conceived as a whole—a special partial em- 
anation for the bestowal of divers gifts according to the will of God (Heb. 
ii. 4; 1 Cor. xii.)—will pass over to every individual (im racav capxa*).— 
mäocav oapka| every flesh, i.e. omnes homines, but with the accessory idea of 
weakness and imperfection, which the contrast of the highest gift of God, 
that is to be imparted to the weak mortal race, here presents.* In Joel 
qwa-53 certainly refers to the people of Israel, conceived, however, as the 
people of God, the collective body of whom, not merely, as formerly, individ- 
ual prophets, shall receive the divine inspiration. Comp. Isa. liv. 13; 
John vi. 45. But as the idea of the people of God has its realization, so 
far as the history of redemption is concerned, in the collective body of be- 
lievers on Christ without distinction of nations; so also in the Messianic 
fulfilment of that prophecy meant by Peter, and now begun, what the 
prophet has promised to all flesh is not to be understood of the Jewish peo- 
ple as such (van Hengel, appealing to ver, 39), but of all the true people 
of God, so fur as they believe on Christ. The first Messianic effusion of the 
Spirit at Pentecost was the beginning of this fulfilment, the completion of 
which is in the course of a progressive development that began at that time 
with Israel, and as respects its end is yet future, although this end was by 
Peter already expected as nigh. — kat xpopyreboovow . . . éEveTmacbjoovrat 
describes the effects of the promised effusion of the Spirit. tpogytevcover, 
afflatu divino loquentur (Matt. vii. 22), is by Peter specially recognized as a 
prediction of that apocalyptically inspired speaking, which had just com- 
menced with the érépace yAdéooac. This we may the more warrantably af- 
firm, since, according to the analogy of xix. 6, we must assume that that 


1 Comp. Weiss, Petrin. Lehrbegr. p. 82 f. tia! effusion of the Spirit on individuals. For 
2 Winer, p. 74 (E. T. 91). the personality of the Spirit, comp. especially 
3 The impersonality of the Spirit is not the saying of Peter, v. 3. ; 
thereby assumed (in opposition to Weiss, bidl. 4 Comp. Rom. iii. 20; Gal. ii. 16; 1 Cor. 1. 


Theol. p. 136), but the distribution of the gifts 29; Matt. xxiv. 22; Luke iii. 6. 
and powers, which are represented as a par- 


58 CHAP. Ir., 18-21. 


speaking was not mere glossolalia in the strict sense, but, in a portion of the 
speaker’s prophecy. Comp. the spiritual speaking in Corinth. — oi viol üuov 
Kai ai Avyaripecs buov] the male and female members of the people of God, ü.e. 
all without exception. Peter sees this also fulfilled by the inspired mem- 
bers of the Christian theocracy, among whom, according to i. 14, there 
were at that time also women. — öpacsıg . . . &vumviorg] visions in waking and 
in sleeping, as forms of the azoxdAvyuc of God, such as often came to the 
prophets. This prophetic distinction, Joel predicts, will, after the effusion 
of the Spirit in its fulness, become common property. The fulfilment of 
this part of the prophecy had, it is true, not yet taken place among the 
members of the Christian people of God, but was still before them as a 
consequence of the communication of the Spirit which had just occurred ; 
Peter, however, quotes the words as already fulfilled (ver. 16), because 
their fulfilment was necessarily conditioned by the outpouring of the Spirit, 
and was consequently already in idea included in it. — veavioxoı . . . mpeo- 
Birepor] belong likewise, as the preceding clause (viol . . . Gvyarépec), to 
the representation of the collective body as illustrated per pepioudv. The 
öpaosıc correspond to the lively feelings of youth ; &vurvıa, to the lesser ex- 
citability cf more advanced age; yet the two are to be taken, not as mutu- 
ally exclusive, but after the manner of parallelism.—The verb, with the 
dative of the cognate noun, is here (évurviowg Evurviacd., they will dream with 
dreams; comp. Joel iii. 1) a Hebraism, and does not denote, like the similar 
construction in classic Greek, a more precise definition or strengthening of 
the notion conveyed by the verb (Lobeck, Paral. p. 524 f). 

Ver. 18. A repetition of the chief contents of ver. 17, solemnly confirm- 
ing them, and prefixing the persons concerned.—xai ye] and indeed.’ It 
seldom occurs in classical writers without the two particles being separated 
by the word brought into prominence or restricted, in which case, however, 
there is also a shade of meaning to be attended to.” We must not explain 
the dovAove pov and the dobsa¢ ov with Heinrichs and Kuinoel, in accordance 
with the original text, which has no yov, of servile hominum genus, nor yet 
with Tychsen? of the alienigenae (because slaves were wont to be purchased 
from abroad) : both views are at variance with the yov, which refers the 
relation of service to God as the Master. It is therefore the male and female 
members of the people of God (according to the prophetic fulfilment : of 
the Christian people of God) that are meant, inasmuch as they recognise 
Jehovah as their Master, and serve Him: my male and female worshippers ; 
comp. the Hebrew WT 72. In the twofold yov Peter agrees with the 
translators of the LXX.,* who must have had another reading of the original 
before them. 


1 Luke xix. 42; Herm. ad Viger. p. 826. who are at the same time my servants and 
2 See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 319. handmaids, and therefore in spiritual things 
3 Tllustratio vatieinit Joel iii. Gott. 1788. are quite on a level with the free.” Similarly 


4So much the less ought Hengstenberg, Bengel, and recently Beelen (Catholic) in his 
Christol. I. p. 402, to have imported into this Commentar. in Acta ap. ed. 2, 1864, who ap- 
enclitic nov what is neitherfound in itnorrel- _ peals inappropriately to Gal. iii. 27 f. 
evant: ‘‘on servants and handmaids of men, 


< 


PETER’S DISCOURSE. 59 


Vv. 19, 20. After this effusion of the Spirit I shall bring about (Sécw, as at 
' Matt. xxiv. 24) catastrophes in heaven and on earth—the latter are mentioned 
at once in ver. 19, the former in ver, 20—as immediate heralds of the Messianic 
day. Peter includes in his quotation this element of the prophecy, because 
its realization (ver. 16), conditioned by the outpouring of the Spirit which 
necessarily preceded it, presented itself likewise essentially as belonging to 
the allotted portion of the éoyara: juépar. The dreadful events could not but 
now—seeing that the effusion of the Spirit preceding them had alread y come 
menced—be conceived as inevitable and very imminent ; and this circum- 
stance could not but mightily contribute to the alarming of souls and their 
being won to Christ. As to répara and onueia, see on Matt. xxiv. 24; Rom. 
xv. 19—aiva . . . karvov contains the omueia éxt rjc yjc, namely, bloodshed 
(war, revolt, murder) and conjlagration. Similar devastations belonged, 
according to the later Jewish Christology also, to the dolores Messiae. See 
on Matt. xxiv. 6, 7. ‘‘Cum videris regna se invicem turbantia, tune ex- 
pectes vestigia Messiae.’?' The reference to blood-rain, fiery meteors, and 
pillars of smoke arising from the earth? is neither certainly in keeping with 
the original text of the prophecy, nor does it satisfy the analogy of Matt. 
xXxiv. — dtuida karvov] vapour of smoke.* — Ver. 20. Meaning: the sun will 
become dark, and the moon appear bloody. Comp. on Matt. xxiv. 29; also 
Isa. xiii. 10 ; Ezek. xxxii. 7. — xpiv é20civ] ere there shall have come. — riv 
juépav Kvpiov| ö.e. according to the sense of the prophetic fulfilment of the 
words : the day of Christ, namely of His Parousia. Comp. on Rom. x. 13. 
But this is not, with Grotius, Lightfoot, and Kuinoel, following the 
Fathers, to be considered as identical with the destruction of Jerusalem, 
which belongs to the oyucia of Parousia, to the dolores Messiae. See on 
Matt. xxiv. 29. — 139 peyddyy x. éxiparg] the great (kar’ &£oxijw, fraught with 
decision, comp. Rev. xvi. 14) and manifest, i.e. which makes itself manifest 
before all the world as that which it is. Comp. the frequent use of éxidvera 
for the Parousia (2 Thess. ii. 8, a/.). The Vulgate aptly renders: mani- 
Festus. Instead of &rıpavj, the Hebrew has 8130, Zerribilis, which the 
LXX., deriving from 785, has incorrectly translated by örıgavj, as also else- 
where.° But on this account the literal signification of éxigav. need not be 
altered here, where the text follows the LXX. 

Ver. 21. And every one who shall have invoked the name of the Lord,—this 
Peter wishes to be understood, according to the sense of the prophetic ful- 
filment, of the invocation of Christ (relative worship : see on vii. 59 ; Rom. 
x. 12; Phil. ii. 10; 1 Cor. i. 2); just as he would have the owjoera 
understood, not of any sort of temporal deliverance, but of the saving 
deliverance of the Messianic kingdom (iv. 12, xv. 11), which Jesus on His 
return will found ; and hence he must now (vv. 22-36) demonstrate Jesus 
the crucified and risen and exalted one, as the Lord and Messiah (ver. 36). 


2 Beresh. rabb. sec. 41. eral idea. Comp. on such combinations, Lo- 
2De Wette, comp. Kuinoel. beck, Paral. p. 584. 
S ärwis, Plat. Tim. p. 87 E, yet in classical 4 See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 728 f. 


writers more usually aruos is the more gen- 5 See Biel and Schleusn. 7’kes. 8.2. 


60 CHAP. II., 22-24. 


And how undauntedly, concisely, and convincingly he docs so! A first 
fruit of the outpouring of the Spirit. 

Ver. 22. Toörovc] like rovro, ver. 14, the words which Follow." — rov 
Nafwpaiov is, in the mouth of the apostle, only the current more precise 
designation of the Lord,” not used in the sense of contempt * for the sake of 
contrast to what follows, and possibly as a reminiscence of the superscrip- 


tion of the cross (Beza and others), of which there is no indication in the 


text (such as perhaps : dvdpa dé). — avdpa and Tov Beov anodedeıyu.] a man on : 


the part of God approved, namely, in his peculiar character, as Messiah. azé 
stands neither here nor elsewhere for ixé, but denotes the going forth of 
the legitimation from God (divinitus).*— eis buäac] in reference to you, in order 
that He might appear to you as such, for you. — dvvan. k. repaoı x. omeiorg] 
a rhetorical accumulation in order to the full exhaustion of the idea,’ as re- 
gards the nature of the miracles, their appearance, and their destination. 
Comp. ver. 19; 2 Thess. ii. 9; 2 Cor. xii. 12; Heb. ii. 4.— iv pécw vuov] 
in the midst of you, so that it was beheld jointly by you all. 

Ver. 23. Tovrov] an emphatie repetition.® There is to be no parenthesis 
before it. This one. . . . delivered up, ye have by the hand of lawless men’ 
affixed and made way with: x. 39; Luke xxii. 2, xxiii. 32. By the avdjo are to be 
understood Gentiles (1 Cor. ix. 21; Rom. i. 14), and it is here more especially 
the Roman soldiers that are meant, by whose hand Christ was affixed, nailed 
to the cross, and thereby put to death. On éxdorov, comp. Drac. 26, and 
examples from Greek writers in Raphel and Kypke, also Lobeck, Paral. p. 
531. It refers to the delivering up of Jesus to the Jews, which took place 
on the part of Judas. This was no work of men, no independent success 
of the treachery, which would, in fact, testify against the Messiahship of 
Jesus ! but it happened in virtue of the fixed, therefore unalterable, resolve 
and (in virtue of the) foreknowledge of God.’ — zpöyvocıc is here usually 
taken as synonymous with ßovA7 ; but against all linguistic usage.” Even 
in 1 Pet. i. 2, comp. ver. 20, the meaning praescientia (Vulgate) is to be 
retained. See generally on Rom. viii. 29. God’s BovA7 (comp. iv. 28) was, 
that Jesus was to be delivered up, and the mode of it was present to Him in 
His prescience, which, therefore, is placed after the Bovay. Objectively, no 
doubt, the two are not separate in God, but the relation is conceived of 


1See Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 2. 3, ad 
Anab. ii. 5. 10. 

2 Comp. iii. 6, iv. 10. 

3 Comp. vi. 14, xxiv. 5. 

4 Joseph. Antt. vii. 14.5; Poppo, ad Thuc. 
i. 17.1; Buttm. newt. Gr. p. 280 (E. T. 326). 

5 Bornem. Schol. in Luc. p. xxx. 

6 See Schaef. Melel. p. 84; Dissen, ad Dem. 
de cor. p. 225. 

7 §va xeıpös (see the critical remarks) is here 
not to be taken, like 1.3, for the mere per (see 
Fritzsche, ad Marc, p. 199), but, as it isa 
manual action that is spoken of, in its con- 
crete, literal meaning. It belongs to vivid 
rhetorical delineation, Comp. Dorville, ad 
Charit. p. 273. 


8 On BovAy, comp. the Homeric Aros & Ere- 
Aciero BovAn, Tl. 1.5, Od. xi. 297. 

® This reason must operate also against 
Lamping’s (Pauli de praedestinat. decreta, 
1858, p. 102 ff.) defence of the common ex- 
planation, in which he specifies, as the dis- 
tinction between BovAnand mpoyvwors, merely 
this: “illud adumbrat Dei voluntatem, hoc 
inde profeetum decretum.’ It is arbitrary, 
with Holsten, z. Hv. d. Paul. w. Pet. p. 146, to 


refer BovAy not to the saving will, but merely 


to the will as regards destiny. See, in oppo- 
sition to this, iii. 18, where the suffering of 
Christ is the fulfilment of divine prophecy ; 
comp. viii. 32 f., x. 43. 


PETER’S DISCOURSE. 61 


after the analogy of the action of the human mind.—The dative is, as in 
xy. 1, that in which the &xdorov has its ground. Without the divine AovA 
«.r.A. it would not have taken place. —The question, How Peter could say 
to those present: Ye have put Him to death, is solved by the remark that 
the execution of Christ was a public judicial murder, resolved on by the 
Sanhedrim in the name of the whole nation, demanded from and conceded by 
the Gentiles, and accomplished under the direction of the Sanhedrim (John 
xix. 16) ; comp. iii. 13 f. The view of Olshausen, that the death of Christ 
was a collective act of the human race, which had contracted a collective 
guilt, is quite foreign to the context. 

Ver. 24. Tac ödivac] Peter most probably used the common expression 
from the O. T.: NN ‘IT, snares of death, in which the #avaros personified 
is conceived as a huntsman laying a snare.’ The LXX. erroneously trans- 
lates this expression as ödivec Havarov, misled by an, dolor (Isa. Ixvi. 7), in 
the plural 2'727, used particularly of birth-pangs. See the LXX. Ps. 
xviii. 5; 2 Sam. xxii. 6. But Luke—and this betrays the use of a Hebrew 
source directly or indirectly—has followed the LXX., and has thus changed 
the Petrine expression vineula mortis into dolores mortis. The expression of 
Luke, who with dJdivec could think of nothing else than the only meaning 
which it has in Greek, gives the latter, and not the former sense. In the 
sense of Peter, therefore, the words are to be explained : after he has loosed 
the snares of death, with which death held him captive ; but in the sense of 
Luke: after he has loosed the pangs of death. According to Luke,* the resur- 
rection of Jesus is conceived as birth from the dead. Death travailed* in 
birth-throes even until the dead was raised again. With this event these 
pangs ceased, they were loosed ; and because God has made Christ alive, 
God has loosed the pangs of death.‘ To understand the death-pangs of 
Christ, from which God freed Him ‘‘resuscitando eum ad vitam nullis dolo- 
ribus obnoxiam ’’ (Grotius), is incorrect, because the liberation from the 
pains of death has already taken place through the death itself, with which 
the earthly work of Christ, even of His suffering, was finished (John xix. 
30). Quite groundless is the assertion of Olshausen, that in Hellenistic 
Greek üdivec has not only the meaning of pains, but also that of bonds, 
which is not at all to be vouched by the passages in Schleusn. hes. V. p. ° 
571. —xabére : according to the fact, that ; see on Luke i. 7. — our jv divarov] 
which is afterwards proved from David. It was thus impossible in virtue 
of the divine destination attested by David. Other reasons (Calovius : on 
account of the wnio personalis, ete.) are here far-fetched. — xpareisdaı ir’ 
abrov] The #avaroc could not but give Him up; Christ could not be retained 
by death in its power, which would have happened, if He, like other dead, 
had not become alive again and risen to eternal life (Rom. vi. 9).° By His 


1 Pg, xviii. 5 f., exvi. 3. See Gesen. Thes. O. C. 1612, ZI. 927; Aelian. 7. A. xii. 5. 


I. p. 440. Comp. Plat. Pol. ix. p. 574 A: peyadats adios 
2 Comp. On mpwröroros Er Ta vexpav, Col. i re kai odvvats ovvexerbar. The aorist participle 
18. is synchronous with aveornae. 
3 6 Oavatos wdive karexwv abröv, Chrys. 5 On xpareiodaı vd, to be ruled by, comp. 4 


4 On Avcas, see LXX. Job xxxix. 3; Soph. Mace. ii. 9 ; Dem. 1010. 17. 


62 CHAP. II., 25-29. 


resurrection Christ has done away death as a power (2 Tim. i. 10; 1 Cor. xv. 
25 f.) 

Ver. 25. Eic auröv] so that the words, as respects their fulfilment, apply 
to Him. See Bernhardy, p. 220.—The passage is from Ps. xvi. 8 ff., ex- 
actly after the LXX. David, if the Psalm, which yet certainly is later, 
belonged to him, or the other suffering theocrat who here speaks, is, in 
what he affirms of himself, a prophetic type of the Messiah ; what he says 
of the certainty that he should not succumb to the danger of death, which 
threatened him, has received its antitypical fulfilment in Christ by His res- 
urrection from the dead. This historical Messianic fulfilment of the Psalm 
justified the apostle in its Messianic interpretation, in which he has on his 
side not rabbinical predecessors (see Schoettgen), but the Apostle Paul 
(xili.-35 f.). The xpowpdynv x.7.2., as the LXX. translates 'N’W, is, accord- 
ing to this ideal Messianic understanding of the Psalm, Christ’s joyful 
expression of His continued fellowship with God on earth, since in fact (ör.) 
God is by His side protecting and preserving Him; J foresaw the Lord 
before my face always, i.e. looking before me with the mind’s glance,’ I saw 
Jehovah always before my face. — ix def:av pov éotiv] namely, as protector 
and helper, as rapaorarnc.” Concerning éx de£ıöv, from the right side out, i.e. 
on the right of it, see Winer, p. 344 (E. T. 459). The figurative element of 
the expression is borrowed from courts of justice, where the advocates 
stood at the right of their clients, Ps. cix. 31. —iva py cadevfa| without 
figure: that I may remain unmoved in the state of my salvation. On the 
figurative use—frequent also in the LXX., Apocr., and Greek authors*—of 
oaAeveı, comp. 2 Thess. ii. 2. 

Ver. 26. Therefore my heart rejoiced and my tongue exulted. The aorists 
denote an act of the time described by zpowpayyy k.r.A., the joyful remem- 
brance of which is here expressed. — 7 kapdia nov, “3?: the heart, the centre 
of personal life, is also the seat of the moral feelings and determinations of 
the will. —Instead of 7 yAöocod uov, the Hebrew has "1129, i.e. my sowl,® in 
place of which the LXX. either found a different reading or gave a free 
rendering. —ére dé Kai 7 oapE pov «.r.A.) but moreover also my flesh (body) 
shall tabernacle, that is, settle itself by way of encampment, on hope, by 
which the Psalmist expresses his confidence that he shall not perish, but 
continue in life—while, according to Peter, from the point of view of the 
fulfilment that has taken place in Christ, these words eic Xpiordév (ver. 25) 
prophetically express that the body of Christ will tarry in the grave on hope, 
i.e. on the basis of the hope of rising from the dead. Thus what is divinely 
destined for Christ—His resurrection—appears in poetic mould as the 
object of the hope of His body. — ir: dé kai] Comp. Luke xiv. 26; Acts 
xxi. 28; Soph. O. R. 1345. — én’ éAridc] as in Rom. iv. 18. 

Ver. 27. What now the Psalmist further says according to the historical 
sense : For thou wilt not leave my soul to Hades (1), i.e. Thou wilt not suffer 


1 Xen. Zell. iv. 3. 16 ; otherwise, xxi. 29. 4 Delitzsch, Psych. p. 248 ff. 
2 Xen. Cyr. iii. 3. 21. 5 Ps, vii. 6, xxx. 13, el al.; see Schoettgen, 
3 Dorville, ad Char. p. 307. p. 415. 


ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 63 
me to die in my present life-peril, and wilt not give Thy Holy One, according 
to the Ketibh of the original: Thy holy ones, the plural of category, comp. 
Hupfeld in loc., to see corruption—is by Peter, as spoken eic Xpiordv, taken 
in accordance with the prophetical meaning historically fulfilled in Him : 
Thou wilt not forsake my soul in Hades, after it shall have come thither ;! 
but by the resurrection wilt again deliver it,” and wilt not suffer Thy Holy 
One, the Messiah, to share corruption, i.e. according to the connection of the 
sense as fulfilled, putrefaction (comp. xiii, 34 ff.).* Instead of dradbopar, 
the original has NNW, a pit, which, however, Peter, with the LXX., un- 
derstood as d:agfopa, and accordingly has derived it not from MW, but 
from ANY, diadbeipw ; comp. Job. xvii. 14. — On déaerc, comp. x. 40, The 
meaning is: Thou wilt not cause, that, etc. Often so also in classical 
writers froın Homer onward. As to ideiv in the sense of experiencing, 
comp. on Luke ii. 26. 

Ver. 28. Thou hast made known to me ways of life; Thou wilt fill me with 
joy in presence of Thy countenance, meant by the Psalmist of the divine guid- 
ance in saving his life, and of the joy which he would thereafter experience 
before God, refers, according to its prophetic sense, as fulfilled in Christ, 
to His resurrection, by which God practically made known to him ways to 
life, and to his state of exaltation in heaven, where he is in the fulness of 
blessedness with God. — pera tov rpooorov cov] TIIIS, in communion with 
Thy countenance, seen by me. Comp. Heb. ix. 24. 

Vv. 29-31. Proof that David in this passage of his Psalm has prophetically 
made known the resurrection of Christ. 

Ver. 29. Mera mappnoiac] frankly and freely, without reserve; for the 
main object was to show off a passage honouring David, that it had re- 
ceived fulfilment in a higher and prophetical sense in another. Bengel 
well remarks: ‘‘Est igitur hoc loco rpoßepareia, previa sermonis mitiga- 
tio.”’—David is called 6 rarpiapync as the celebrated ancestor of the kingly 
family, from which the nation expected their Messiah. — ör:] that (not for). 
Peter wishes to say of David what is notorious, and what it is allowable for 
him to say on account of this very notoriety ; therefore with és6y there is 
not to be supplied, as is usually done, äorw, but éori (&£eorı). —év juiv] 
David was buried at Jerusalem.‘ In ro pvqua abrov, his sepulchre, there is 
involved, according to the context, as self-evident: ‘‘cum ipso Davidis 
corpore corrupto ; molliter loquitur,’’ Bengel. 


1 See Kühner, § 622; Buttm. newt. Gr. p. 287 
(E. T. 333). 

2 This passage is a dictum probans for the 
abode of the soul of Christ in Hades, but it 
contains no dogmatic statement concerning 
the descensus ad infernos in the sense of the 
church. Comp. Giider, Lehre von d. Erschei- 
nung Christi unter d. Todten, p. 30; Weiss, 
Petrin, Lehrbegr. p. 233f. 

3 After this passage, compared with ver. 31, 
no further discussion is needed to show how 
unreasonably it has been taken for granted 


(see especially Holsten, 2. Hv. d. Paul. u. 
Petr. p. 128 ff.) that the early church conceived 
the resurrection of Christ as a ueraßanıs eis 
érepov o@ua, entirely independent of the dead 
body of our Lord. How much are the evan- 
gelical narratives of the appearances of the 
risen Christ, in which the identity of His body 
has stress so variously laid on it, at variance 
with this opinion! Comp. x. 41. 

4 Neh. iii. 16; Joseph. Antt, vii. 15. 3, xiii, 
8. 4, Bell. Jud. i. 2. 5. 


_ 


64 CHAP. II, 30-36. 


Vv. 30-32. Oiv] infers from the previous kai 7d uvjua adtod . . . Tabrms, 
whence it is plain that David in the Psalm, l.c., as a prophet and divinely 
conscious progenitor of the future Messiah, has spoken of the resurrection of 
Christ as the one who should not be left in Hades, and whose body should 
not decay. —xai eidöc] see 2 Sam. vii. 12. -— x kaprov r. dagbo0¢ abrou] se. 
rıva. On the frequent supplying of the indefinite pronoun, see Kühner, II. 
p. 87 f.; Fritzsche, Conject. I. 36. The well-known Hebrew-like expression 
kapmöc THC dopvo¢g avtov (Ps. Cxxxii. 11) presupposes the idea of the uninter- 
rupted male line of descent from David to Christ.’— kadioaı éxi T. Opdvov 
avrov] to sit on His throne,” namely, as the Messiah, who was to be the theo- 
cratic consummator of the kingdom of David (Mark xi. 10; Acts xv. 16). 
Comp. Luke i. 32. — zpoidév| prophetically looking into the future. Comp. 
Gal. iii. 8. —örı ob karer.] since He, in fact, was not left, etc. Thus has 
history proved that David spoke prophetically of the resurrection of the 
Messiah. The subject of careAeigfy x.7.A. is not David * — which no hearer, 
after ver. 29, could suppose—but 6 Xproröc: and what is stated of Him in 
the words of the Psalm itself is the triumph of their historical fulfilment, 
a triumph which is continued and concluded in ver. 32. — roürov röv ’Inoovv] 
has solemn emphasis ; this Jesus, no other than just Him, to whom, as the 
Messiah who has historically appeared, David’s prophecy refers. —ov] 
neuter: whereof. See Bernhardy, p. 298. — wäprvpec] in so far as we, His 
twelve apostles, have conversed with the risen Christ Himself. Comp. 
a 2e5 XA, 

Ver. 33 O0v] namely, in consequence of the resurrection, with which the 
exaltation is necessarily connected. — rq de£ıa tov Beou] by the right hand, i.e. 
by the power of God, v. 31; Isa. Ixiii. 12.4 The rendering: to the right 
hand of God, however much it might be recommended as regards sense by 
ver. 34, is to be rejected, seeing that the construction of simple verbs of 
motion with the dative of the goal aimed at, instead of with zpéc or eic, 
belongs in classical Greek only to the poets,° and occurs, indeed, in late 
writers,° but is without any certain example in the N. T., often as there 
would have been occasion for it; for Acts xxi. 16 admits of another expla- 
nation, and Rev. ii. 16 is not at all a case in point. In the passage of the 
LXX. Judg. xi. 18, deemed certain by Fritzche, 77 yj Mod, if the read- 
ing is correct, is to be connected, not with 7A9ev, but as appropriating da- 
tive with ard avaroAov 7Aiov.” The objection, that by the right hand of God is 
here inappropriate (de Wette and others), is not tenable. There is something 
triumphant in the element emphatically prefixed, which is correlative to 
avéotyoev 6 Oed¢ (ver. 82) ; God's work of power was, as the resurrection, so 


1 Comp. Heb. vii. 5; Gen. xxxv. 11 ;2 Chron. 
vi. 9; and see remark after Matt. i. 18. 

2 Xen. Anab. ii. 1. 4. 

3 Hofm. Schriftbew. TI. 1, p. 115. 

4Comp. Vulgate, Luther, Castalio, Beza, 
Bengel, also Zeller, p. 502, and others. 

5 See the passages from Homer in Nigelsb. 
p. 12, ed. 3, and, besides, Erfurdt, ad Antig. 
234 ; Bernhardy, p. 95; Fritzsche, Conject. I. 


p. 42, the latter seeking to defend the use 
as legitimate. ; 

® The dative of interest (e.g. Epxouar cor, I 
come for thee) has often been confounded 
withit. Comp. Kriiger, § 48.9.1. See Winer, 


“p. 201 f. (E. T. 268 f.). 


7 Concerning Kvpw ievar, Xen. Anab. i. 2. 
26, see Bornemann, ed. Lips. 


ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 65 


also the exaltation. Comp. Phil. ii. 9. A Hebraism, or an incorrect trans- 
lation of "yn, has been unnecessarily and arbitrarily assumed. — r7v re 
émayy. T. dy. mv. AaB. mapa r. ratp.| contains that which followed upon the 
vbwdeic, and hence is not to be explained with Kuinoel and others: 
“after He had received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the 
. Father ;”” but: “after He had received the promised (i. 4) Holy Spirit from 

His Father. See on Luke xxiv. 49.— roüro is either, with Vulgate, 
Erasmus, Beza, Kuinoel, and others, to be referred to the rveuua äyıov, SO 
that the 6 corresponds to the explanatory id quod? or— which, on account 
of the 6 annexed to roiro, is more natural and more suitable to the miracu- 
lous character—it is, with Luther, Calvin, and others, to be taken as an in- 
dependent neuter: He poured forth, just now, this, what ye, in effectu, see 
and hear, in the conduct and speech of those assembled. Accordingly, 
Peter leaves it to his hearers, after what had previously been remarked (rv 
Te &mayy. . . . marpöc), themselves to infer that what was poured out was 
nothing else than just the rvenua dyiov.* — The idea that the exalted Jesus 
in heaven receives from His Father and pours forth the Holy Spirit, is 
founded on such instructions of Christ as John xv. 26, xvi. 7. Comp. on 
1%. 

Vv. 34, 35. Tap] The fundamental fact of the previous statement, namely, 
the 79 desıa Ocov iwheic, has still to be proved, and Peter proves this also 
from a saying of David, which has not received its fulfilment in David him- 
self. — Aéyer 08 avtéc] but he himself says, but it is his own declaration ; and 
then follows Ps. ex. 1, where David distinguishes from himself Him who is 
to sit at the right hand of God, as His Lord (76 kvpiw pov). This King, des- 
ignated by ro kvpiw pov of the Psalm, although it does not proceed from 
David (see on Matt. xxii. 43), is, according to the Messianic destination and 
fulfilment of this Psalm,‘ Christ, who is Lord of David and of all the saints 
of the O. T. ; and His oceupying the throne, sit Thou at my right hand, de- 
notes the exaltation of Christ to the glory and dominion of the Father, whose 
civOpovoc He has become ; Heb. i. 8, 13; Eph. i. 21 f. 

Ver. 36. The Christological aim of the whole discourse, which, as un- 
doubtedly proved after what has been hitherto said (odv), is emphatically at 
the close set down for recognition as the summary of the faith now requi- 
site. In this case dcoaidc (unchangeably) is marked with strong emphasis. — 
mac olxoc 'Iop.] without the article, because oix. ’Icp. has assumed the nature 
of a proper name.° The whole people is regarded as the family of their an- 
cestor Israel One V3). — xal xipiov avtov k. Xptoröv] him Lord, ruler gener- 
ally, comp. x. 36, as well as also Messiah. The former general expression, ac- 
cording to which He is 6 dp &mi rävrov, Rom. ix. 5, and xegady irép mavra, 


1 Bleek in the Stud. vw. Krit. 1832, p. 1038; 
de Wette ; Weiss, Petr. Lehrbegr. p. 205. 

2 Kühner, § 802. 2. 

3 It cannot, however, be said that “ the first 
congregation of disciples receives this gift 
without baptism ” (Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 150). 
Those persons possessed by the Spirit were, 
in fact, all confessors of Christ, and it must 


in their case be supposed that they had 
already received baptism in the Jifetime of 
our Lord, to which conclusion vv. 38, 41 point. 

4 Which is not to be identified with its his- 
torical meaning. See Hupfeld in Zoc., and 
Diestel in the Jahrb. f.d. Th. p. 562 f. 

5 Comp. LXX. 1 Kings xii. 23: Ezek, xlv. 
6, al. Winer, p. 105 (E. T. 157). 


66 CHAP. IL, 37-41. 


Eph. i. 22, the latter special, according to which He is the curip rov köouov, 
v. 31, John iv. 42, and xegady ripe éxxAnoiac, Eph. i. 22, Col. 1. 18, together 
characterize the Messianic possessor of the kingdom, which God has made 
Christ to be by His exaltation, seeing that He had in His state of humilia- 
tion emptied Himself of the power and glory, and was only reinstated into 
them by His exaltation. Previously He was indeed likewise Lord and Mes- 
siah, but in the form of a servant; and it was after laying aside that form 
that He became such in complete reality.’ It is not to be inferred from such 
passages as this and Acts iv. 27, x. 38, xvii. 31 (de Wette), that the Book 
of Acts represents the Messianic dignity of Jesus as an acquisition in time ; 
against which view even rapü tov rarpdc in our passage (ver. 33), compared 
with the confession in Matt. xvi. 16, John xvi. 30, is decisive, to say noth- 
ing of the Pauline training of Luke himself. Comp. also ver. 34. — auröv 
is not superfluous, but rovrov röv ’Imoovv is a weighty epexegesis, which is 
purposely chosen in order to annex the strongly contrasting dv Uueig Eorav- 
pooare (comp. iii. 13, vii. 52), and thus to impart to the whole address a 
deeply impressive conclusion. ‘‘ Aculeus in fine,’’ Bengel. 

Ver. 37. But after they heard it, what was said by Peter, they were pierced 
in the heart. — karavvooeıv, in the figurative sense of painful emotion, which 
penetrates the heart as if stinging, is not found in Greek writers, who, how- 
ever, use viccecy in a similar sense ; but see LXX. Ps. cix. 16 : katavevvypévov 
7h kapdia, Gen. xxxiv. 7, where xareviynoar is illustrated by the epexegesis : 
Kal Aurnpov mv avtoic opödpa.” The hearers were seized with deep pain in their 
conscience on the speech of Peter, partly for the general reason that He 
whom they now recognised as the Messiah was murdered by the nation, part- 
ly for the more special reason that they themselves had not as yet acknowl- 
edged Him, or had been even among His adversaries, and consequently had 
not recognised and entered upon the only way of salvation pointed out by 
Peter.—On the figure of stinging, comp. Cic. de orat. iii. 34, of Pericles : 
‘Cut in eorum mentibus, qui audissent, quasi aculeos quosdam relinqueret.”’ 
—ri moımoouev] what shall we do?’ The inquiry of aneed of salvation surren- 
dering itself to guidance. An opposite impression to that made by the dis- 
course of Jesus in Nazareth, Luke iv. 28. —dvdpe¢ adeAgoi] an affectionate 
and respectful address from broken hearts already gained. Comp. on i. 16. 
“Non ita dixerunt prius,’’ Bengel. 

Ver. 38. What a definite and complete answer and promise of salvation ! 
The weravoyoare demands the change of ethical disposition as the moral con- 
dition of being baptized, which directly and necessarily brings with it faith 
(Mark i. 15) ; the aorist denotes the immediate accomplishment (comp. iii. 
19, vill. 22), which is conceived as the work of energetic resolution. So 
the apostles began to accomplish it, Luke xxiv. 47.— im 76 övöuarı ’Ino. 
Xpıorov] on the ground of the name, so that the name ‘‘ Jesus Messiah,’’ as the 
contents of your faith and confession, is that on which the becoming bap- 
tized rests, Barri£, is only here used with Zri; but comp. the analogous 


ı Comp. Weiss, did. Theol. p. 134 f. Susann. 11 (of the pain of love). Compare 
2 Ecclus. xiy. 1, xii. 12, xx. 21, xlvii. 21; also Luke ii. 35. 3° Winer, p. 262 (E. T. 348). 


RESULTS OF THE ADDRESS. 67 


expressions, Luke xxi. 8, xxiv. 47; Acts v. 28, 40.; Matt. xxiv. 5, al. — 
ei¢ denotes the object of the baptism, which is the remission of the guilt 
contracted in the state before weravora. Comp. xxii. 16; 1 Cor. vi. 11. — 
Kai Amp.) Kai consecutivum. After reconciliation, sanctification; both are 
experienced in baptism. — roD dyiov rvetuaroc] this is the dwped itself. Heb. 
wi. 4; Acts x. 45, xi. 17. 

Ver. 39. Proof of the preceding Ajpecbe K.7.2.: for to you belongs the 
promise concerned, yours it is, i.e. you are they in whom the promise of the 
communication of the Spirit is to be realized. — roic eic narpav] to those who 
are at a distance, that is, to all the members of the Jewish nation, who are 
neither dwellers here at Jerusalem, nor are now present as pilgrims to the 
feast, both Jews and Hellenists.’ But, although Peter might certainly con- 
ceive of the conversion of the Gentiles, according to Isa. ii. 2, xlix. 1, «al., in 
the way of their coming to and passing through Judaism, yet the mention 
of the Gentiles here—observe the emphatically preceding tuiv—would be 
quite alien from the destination of the words, which were intended to 
prove the Afpecte «.7.A2. of ver. 38. The conversion of the Gentiles does not 
here belong to the matter in hand. Beza, whom Casaubon follows, under- 
stood it of time :? longe post futuros, but this is excluded by the very concep- 
tion of the nearness of the Parousia.—As to the expression of direction, 
ei¢ wakp., COMP. on XXii. 5. —baove Av mpookaA. K.r.A.] contains the definition 
of räoı roic eic waxpav: as many as God shall have called to Himself, namely, 
by the preaching of the gospel, by the reception of which they, as mem- 
bers of the true theocracy, will enter into Christian fellowship with God, 
and will receive the Spirit. 

Ver. 40. Observe the change of the «aorist dreuapriparo (see the critical 
notes) and imperfect maperareı : he adjured them (1 Tim v. 21; 2 Tim. ii. 14, 
iv. 1, often also in classical writers), after which followed the continued exhor- 
tation, the contents of which was: Become saved from this (the now living) 
perverse generation away, in separating yourselves from them by the ueravora 
and baptism. — oxoAı6c] crooked, in a moral sense = ädıroc.. Comp. on Phil. 
11,19, 

Ver. 41. M&v obv] namely, in consequence of these representations of the 
apostle. We may translate either : they then who received his word (namely, 
oatnre k.T.2.),° or, they then, those indicated in ver. 37, after they received his 
word, etc.* The latter is correct, because, according to the former view of 
the meaning, there must have been mention previously of a reception of 
the word, to which reference would here be made. As this is not the case, 
those present in general are meant, as in ver. 37, and dzodefauevor Tov Adyov 
avrov (ver 40) stands in a climactic relation to karevuynoav (ver. 37). — 
mpooer£&önoav] were added (ver. 47, v. 14, xi. 24), namely, to the fellowship of 





1 Comp. also Baumgarten. Others, with 22Sam. vii. 19, comp. the classical ovx« &s 
Theophylact, Oecumenius, Erasmus, Calvin, pakpav. 
Piscator, Grotius, Wolf, Bengel, Heinrichs, 3 Comp. viii. 4 (so Vulgate, Luther, Beza, 
de Wette, Lange, Hackett, also Weiss, Petr. Bengel, Kuinoel, and others). 
Lehrbegr. p. 148, and bibl. Theol. p. 149, ex- 4 Comp. i. 6, viii. 25, xv. 3 (so Castalio, de 


plain it of the Gentiles. Comp. Eph. ii. 13. Wette). 


68 CHAP. II., 42-45. 


the already existing followers of Jesus, as is self-evident from the context. — 
Yvxai] persons, according to the Hebrew Y2), Ex. 1.5; Acts vii. 14; 1 Pet. 
iii. 20; this use is not classical, since, in the passages apparently proving ıt.' 
yvux7 means, in the strict sense, soul (life).—The text does not affirm that 
the baptism of the three thousand occurred on the spot and simultaneously, 
but only that it took place during the course of that day (ri juepa Exsivy). 
Observe further, that their baptism was conditioned only by the peravoa 
and by faith on Jesus as the Messiah; and, accordingly, it had their 
further Christian instruction not as a preceding, but as a subsequent, con- 
dition (ver. 42). 

Ver. 42 now describes what the reception of the three thousand had as 
its consequence ; what they, namely, the three thousand and those who 
were already believers before (for the whole body is the subject, as is evident 
from the idea of rpoceréfjoav), as members of the Christian community 
under the guidance of the apostles perseveringly did.” The development 
of the inner life of the youthful church follows that great external increase. 
First of all: they were perseveringly devoted to the instruction (2 Tim. iv. 2; 
1 Cor. xiv. 6) of the apostles, they were constantly intent on having them- 
selves instructed by the apostles. — rn xowwvie] is to be explained of the 
mutual brotherly association which they sought to maintain with one another.” 
The same in substance with the adeAgdryc, 1 Pet. ii. 17, v. 9. It is incor- 
rect in Wolf, Rosenmiiller, and others to refer it to rov arooroAwv, and to 
understand it of living in intimate association with the apostles. For xai 7H 
kovwv. is, as well as the other three, an independent element, not to be 
blended with the preceding. Therefore the views of others are also incor- 
rect, who either* take the following (spurious) «ai as explicativum (et commu- 
nione, videlicet fractione panis et precibus), or suppose a &v dıa Övurv (Homberg) 
after the Vulgate: et communicatine fractionis panis, so that rH Kevwv. 
would already refer to the Agapae. Recently, following Mosheim,° the 
explanation of the communication of charitable gifts to the needy has become 
the usual one.° But this special sense must have been indicated by a spe- 
cial addition, or have been undoubtedly suggested by the context, as in 
Rom. xv. 26; Heb. xiii. 16 ; especially as koıwvia does not in itself signify 
communicatio, but communio ; and it is only from the context that it can 
obtain the idea of fellowship manifesting itself by contributions in aid, etc., 
which is not here the case.— ry kAacee tov aptov] in the breaking of their 
bread (rov a.). By this is meant the observance of common evening-meals (Luke 
xxiv. 30), which, after the manner of the last meal of Jesus, they concluded 
with the Lord’s Supper (Agapae, Jude 12). The Peschito and several 


1 Eur. Androm. 612, Med. 247, al.; see 
Kypke, II. p. 19. 

2 With the spuriousness of the second kai 
(see the critical note), the four particulars are 
arranged in pairs. 

3 Comp. on Phil. i.5. See also Weiss, ddl. 
Theol. p. 141 f., and Ewald. [Wolf. 

4 Cornelius a Lapide and Mede as quoted by 

5 De rebus Christ. ante Const. M.p. 114. 


6 So Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Olshausen, Baum- 
garten, also Löhe, Aphorism. p. 80 ff., Har- 
nack, christl. Gemeindegottesd. p. 78 ff., Hac- 
ett, and others. That the moral nature of the 
ko.vwvia expresses itself also in liberality, is 
correct in itself, but is not here particularly 
brought forward, any more than other forms 
of its activity. This in opposition to Lechler, 
apost. Zeit. p. 285. 


THE FIRST CONVERTS. 69 


Fathers, as well as the Catholic Church,' with Suicer, Mede, Wolf, Light- 
foot, and several older expositors, arbitrarily explain it exclusively of the 
Eucharist ; comp. also Harnack, l.c. p. 111 ff. Such a celebration is of later 
origin ; the separation of the Lord’s Supper from the joint evening meal 
did not take place at all in the apostolic church, 1 Cor. xi. The passages, 
xx. 7, 11, xxvii. 35, are decisive against Heinrichs, who, after Kypke, ex- 
plains the breaking of bread of beneficence to the poor (Isa. lviii. 7), so that 
it would be synonymous with xowwvia (but see above). —rai¢ mpooevyaic] 
The plural denotes the prayers of various kinds, which were partly new 
Christian prayers restricted to no formula, and partly, doubtless, Psalms 
and wonted Jewish prayers, especially having reference to the Messiah and 
His kingdom.—Observe further in general the family character of the 
brotherly union of the first Christian church. 

Ver. 43. But fear came upon every soul, and many miracles, ete. Luke in 
these words describes : (1) what sort of impression the extraordinary result 
of the event of Pentecost made generally upon the minds? of those who did 
not belong to the youthful church ; and (2) the work of the apostles after 
the effusion of the Spirit. Therefore ré is the simple copula, and not, as is 
often assumed, equivalent to yap. — éyivero]| (see the critical note) is in both 
cases the deseriptive imperfect.* Elsewhere, instead of the dative, Luke 
has éxi with the accusative, or éu@oBoc yiverat. — H6ßog, aS in Mark iv. 41, 
Luke i. 63, vii. 16, etc., fear, dread, which are wont to seize the mind on a 
great and wonderful, entirely unexpected, occurrence. This ¢60¢, occa. 
sioned by the marvellous result which the event of Pentecost together with 
the address of Peter had produced, operated quasi freno (Calvin), in pre- 
venting the first internal development of the church’s life from being 
disturbed by premature attacks from without. — dıa rwv arocr.] for the 
worker, the causa efficiens, was God. Comp. ver. 22, iv. 30, xv. 12. 

Vv. 44, 45. But (sé, continuative) as regards the development of the 
_church-life, which took place amidst that doc without and this miracle- 
working of the apostles, all were &mi 7d aurc. This, as ini. 15, ii. 1, is to 
be understood as having a local reference, and not with Theophylact, 
Kypke, Heinrichs, and Kuinoel : de animorum consensu, which is foreign to 
N. T. usage. They were accustomed all to be together. This is not strange, 
when we bear in mind the very natural consideration that after the feast 
many of the three thousand—of whom, doubtless, a considerable number 
consisted of pilgrims to the feast—returned to their native countries ; so 
that the youthful church at Jerusalem does not by any means seem too 
large to assemble in one place. — kai eiyov axavra xowd| they possessed all things 
in common, i.e. all things belonged to all, were a common good. According 
to the more particular explanation which Luke himself gives («ai ra kryuara 





1This Church draws as an inference from 466. Beelen still thinks that he is able to make 
our passage the historical assertion: Sub una good the idea of the daily unbloody sacrifice 


specie panis communicaverunt sanctiin primi- of the mass by the appended r. zpocevy. ! 
tiva ecclesia. Confut. Conf. Aug. p. 543 of my 2 raocn Wuxn, Winer, p. 147 (E. T. 194). 
edition of the Libri Symbolici. See, in oppo- 3 Comp., moreover, on the expression, Hom. 


sition to this view, the striking remarks of Zl. 1, 188 : IInAciwrı 8’ axos yevero, xii, 392, al. 
Casaubon in the Zirercitatt. Anti-Baron. p. 


70 CHAP. II., 45, 46. 


. .. elye, comp. iv. 32), we are to assume not merely in general a distin- 
guished beneficence, liberality, and mutual rendering of help,’ or ‘‘a prevailing 
willingness to place private property at the disposal of the church ;’’ ? but a real 
community of goods in the early church at Jerusalem, according to which 
the possessors were wont to dispose of their lands and their goods gen- 
erally, and applied the money sometimes themselves (Acts ii. 44 f., iv. 32), 
and sometimes by handing it to the apostles (Acts v. 2), for the relief of 
the wants of their fellow-Christians. See already Chrysostom. But for 
the correct understanding of this community of goods and its historical 
character (denied by Baur and Zeller), it is to be observed : (1) It took 
place only in Jerusalem. For there is no trace of it in any other church ; 
on the contrary, elsewhere the rich and the poor continued to live side by 
side, and Paul in his letters had often to inculcate beneficence in opposition 
to selfishness and rAesovefia. Comp. also Jas. v. 1 ff. ; 1 John iii. 17. And 
this community of goods at Jerusalem helps to explain the great and gen- 
eral poverty of the church in that city, whose possessions naturally— 
certainly also in the hope of the Parousia speedily occurring—were soon 
consumed. As the arrangement is found in no other church, it is very 
probable that the apostles were prevented by the very experience acquired 
in Jerusalem from counselling or at ull introducing it elsewhere. (2) This 
community of goods was not ordained as a legal necessity, but was left to the 
Sree will of the owners. This is evident from Acts v. 4 and xii. 12. Never- 
theless, (3) in the yet fresh vigour of brotherly love,® it was, in point of 
‚Fact, general in the church of Jerusalem, as is proved from this passage and 
from the express assurance at iv. 32, 34 f., in connection with which the 
conduct of Barnabas, brought forward in iv. 36, is simply a concrete 
instance of the general practice. (4) It was not an institution borrowed from 
the Essenes* (in opposition to Grotius, Heinrichs, Ammon, Schnecken- 
burger). For it could not have arisen without the guidance of the apos- 
tles ; and to attribute to them any sort of imitation of Essenism, would be 
devoid alike of internal probability and of any trace in history, as, indeed, 
the first fresh form assumed by the life of the church must necessarily be con- 
ceived as a development from within under the impulse of the Spirit. (5) 
On the contrary, the relation arose very naturally, and that from within, 
as a continuation and extension of that community of goods which subsisted in 
the case of Jesus Himself and His disciples, the wants of all being defrayed 
from a common purse. It was the extension of this relation to the whole 
church, and thereby, doubtless, the putting into practice of the command 
Luke xii. 33, but in a definite form. That Luke here and in iv. 32, 34 


expresses himself too strongly (de 


1 Comp. also Hundeshagen in Herzog’s En- 
cykl. III. p. 26. In this view the Pythagorean 
ra THY diiwy Kowa might be compared with it 
(Rittersh. ad Porphyr. Vit. Pyth. p. 46). 

2 De Wette, comp. Neander, Baumgarten, 
Lechler, p. 320 ff., also Lange, apost. Zeitalt. 
I. p. 90, and already Mosheim, Diss. ad hist. 
eccl. pertin. II. p. 1 ff., Kuinoel, and others. 


Wette), is an arbitrary assertion. 


3 Bengel on iv. 34 aptly says: “non nisi 
summo fidei et amoris flori convenit.” 

4 See Joseph. Bell. Jud. i.8.3f. The Py- 
thagoreans also had a community of goods. 
See Jamblich. Vita Pyth. 165. 72; Zeller, p. 
504. See, in opposition to the derivation from. 
Essenism, von Wegnern in the Zeitschr. f. 
histor. Theol. XI.2, p.1 ff., Ewald and Ritschl. 


COMMUNITY OF GOODS. TI 


Schneckenburger, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1855, p. 514 ff., and Ewald have 
correctly apprehended the matter as an actual community of goods." — ra 
kryuara] the landed possessions (belonging to him).? ürapseıg : possessions in 
general,* aurä] it, namely, the proceeds. The reference is involved in the 
preceding verb (érizpackov).* —kalléte av Tic xpeiav eiye] just as any one had 
need. av with the indicative denotes : ‘‘ accidisse aliquid non certo quodam 
tempore, sed quotiescunque occasio ita ferret.’’ ® 

Ver. 46. Kal! juépav] daily. See Bernhardy, p. 241. — On rpookaprepeiv 
ev, to be diligent in visiting a place, comp. Susann. 6.-- iv ro iep~] as con- 
fessors of the Messiah of their nation, whose speedy appearance in glory 
they expected, as well as in accordance with the example of Christ Him- 
self, and with the nature of Christianity as the fulfilment of true Judaism, 
they could of course have no occasion for voluntarily separating themselves 
from the sanctuary of their nation; on the contrary, they could not but 
unanimously (öwodyu.) consider themselves bound to it; comp. Luke xxiv. 
53. — KAdvrec üprov] breaking bread, referring, as in ver. 42, to the love-feasts. 
The article might stand as in ver. 42, but is here not thought of, and there- 
fore not put. It would mean: their bread. —xar’ oikov] Contrast to &v ro 
iepo ; hence : at home, in meetings in their place of assembly, where they 
partook of the meal, perhaps in detachments. Comp. Philem. 2. So 
most commentators, including Wolf, Bengel, Heinrichs, Olshausen, de 
Wette. But Erasmus, Salmasius, and others explain it domatim, from 
house to house. So also Kuinoel and Hildebrand. Comp. Luke viii. 1; 
Acts xv. 21; Matt. xxiv. 7. But there is nowhere any trace of holding 
the love-feasts successively in different houses ; on the contrary, according 
to i. 13, it must be assumed that the new community had at the very first 
a fixed place of assembly. Luke here places side by side the public relig- 
ious conduct of the Christians and their private association ; hence after 
&v ro iep@ the express xkar’ oikov was essentially necessary.° — uereAäußavov 
rpoone] they received their portion of food (comp. xxvii. 33 f.), partook of 
their sustenance.” Ver. 46 is to be paraphrased as follows: In the daily 
visiting of the temple, at which they attended with one accord, and amidst 
daily observance of the love-feast at home, they wanted not sustenance, of which 
they partook in gladness and singleness of heart. —év ayaddracec| this is the 
expression of the joy in the Holy Spirit, as they partook of the daily bread, 
‘fructus fidei et character veritatis,’’ Bengel. And still in the erection of 


1 Comp. Ritschl, altkath. Kirche, p. 232. 

2 See v.1; Xen. Cec. 20.23; Eustath. ad I. 
vi. p. 685. 

3 Polyb. ii. 17. 11; Heb. x. 34, and Bleek 
in loc. 

4 Comp. Luke xviii. 22; John xii. 5. See 
generally, Winer, p. 138 (E. T. 181 f.). 

5 Herm. ad Viger. p. 820. Comp. iv. 35; 
Mark vi. 56; Krüger, Anad.i. 5. 2; Kiihner, 
ad Mem.i. 1. 16; and see on 1 Cor. xii. 2. 

6 Observe how, on the one hand, the youth- 
ful church continued still bound up with the 
national cultus, but, on the other hand, de- 


veloped itself at the same time as a separate 
society, and in this latter development already 
put forth the germs of the distinctively Chris- 
tian cultus (comp. Nitzsch, prakt. Theol. 1. p. 
174 ff., 213 ff.). The further evolution and in- 
dependent vital power of this cultus could 
not but gradually bring about the severance 
from the old, and accomplish that severance 
in the first instance in Gentile- Christian 
churches. 

7 Plat. Polit. p. 275 C : maudeias pererdAnbevar 
Kal Tpod7js. 


12 CHAP, sis 47. 


This is, then, the 
The 


the kingdom believers are äuouo: év ayardıaoeı, Jude 24. 
joy of triumph. -—- aperörnc] plainness, simplicity, true moral candour.' 
word is not elsewhere preserved in Greek, but ag£Acıa is.? 

Ver. 47. Aivovvrec rt. Oeöv] is not to be restricted to giving thanks at meals, 
but gives prominence generally to the whole religious frame of spirit , which 
expressed itself in the praises of God (comp. de Wette). This is clearly evi- 
dent from the second clause of the sentence, kat &yovres . . . Aaöv, referring 
likewise to their relation in general. That piety praising God, namely, and 
this possession of the general favour of the people, formed together the 
happy accompanying circumstances, under which they partook of their 
bodily sustenance with gladness and simple heart. — rpöc 62. r. Aadv] possess- 
ing favour, on account of their pious conduct, in their relation to the whole 
people” Comp. Rom, v. 1. — 6 kipioc] i.e. Christ, as the exalted Ruler of 
His church. —rov¢e cwfouévove| those who were being saved, i.e. those who, by 
their very accession to the church, became saved from eternal perdition so as 
to partake in the Messianic kingdom. Comp. ver. 40. 


Notes py AMERICAN EDITOR. 


(x) Other tongues. V. 4. 


The obvious and natural meaning of the passage is that the disciples 
were suddenly endowed with the faculty of speaking foreign languages, 
before utterly unknown by them. This special gift was promised by our 
Lord (Mark xvi. 17). The exercise of the gift is mentioned in connection 
with the conversion of Cornelius and his company (Acts ii. 15) ; also with the 
Ephesian brethren on whom Paul laid his hands (Acts xix. 6), And Paul 
speaks of ‘‘kinds of tongues’’ as one of the spiritual gifts, and discusses the 
question at length in 1 Cor. xiv. The gift is designated by a variety of names: 
kawalis yAdsoas Aadeiv (Mark xvi. 17); Eregaıs yAvocaıs Aakeiv (Acts il. 4); 
yAvocaıs Aakeiv (Acts x. 46) ; yAwooaıS or yAdoon AaAeiv, In this passage alone is 
the phrase ‘‘ other tongues ” employed. Various explanations have been offered 
of this wonderful phenomenon by those who deny the supernatural, or who, 
with our author, consider that the sudden communication of a facility of speak- 
ing foreign languages is neither logically possible nor psychologically and 
morally conceivable, or with Alford regard such an endowment as self-contra- 
dictory and impossible. It is supposed that the disciples were not all Galile- 
ans, but that some of them were foreign Jews, acquainted with other languages, 
in which they spoke—that the utterances were incoherent, jubilant expres- 
sions—that nothing more is meant than that some poetical, antiquated, provin- 
cial and foreign phrases were employed by the speakers; or that the utter- 
ances were ecstatic, spoken in a high state of inspiration, and often destitute 


able period intervenes, and the popular hu- 
mour, particularly in times of fresh excite- 
ment, isso changeable. Schwanbeck also, p. 


1 Dem. 1489. 10 : ahedAns kat mappnaias pears. 
2 Ael. V. A. iii. 10, al. Polyb. vi. 48. 4. 
3 To refer this remark, on account of the 


later persecution, to the idealizing tendency 
and to legendary embellishment (Baur), isa 
very rash course, as between this time and 
the commencement of persecution aconsider- 


45, denies the correctness of the representa- 
tion, which he reckons among the peculiarities 
of the Petrine portion of the hook. 


NOTES. 73 


of intelligible meaning —or that the words uttered had been heard by the disci- 
ples before, when mingling at the annual feasts with pilgrims of many nations ; 
and now under high excitement these words or phrases were recalled and ut- 
tered—or some have supposed that only one language was spoken, but each 
hearer understood it as his own. That is, Peter spoke in Aramaic, but one un- 
derstood it as Greek, another as Arabic, and another as Persian. Now, not one 
of these theories, however ingenious, accounts for the recorded facts, and 
some of them contradict them. But when the event is admitted to be dis- 
tinctly miraculous, and the power a special gift of God, why is it to be consid- 
ered either impossible or inconceivable? We may be wholly incapable of con- 
ceiving the modus operandi, yet admit the credibility and certainty of the fact, 
Some difficulty arises from considering the speaking with tongues discussed by 
Paul in 1 Cor. xiv., as identical in all respects with the event which transpired 
on the day of Pentecost. The gifts are analogous and similar, but not identi- 
cal. The gift at Pentecost was unique, not only as the first in order, but also 
as superior in kind. Both are spiritual gifts, and of supernatural origin, and 
characterized by similar terms ; but they differ in this, that at Pentecost dis- 
tinct languages were spoken, which were understood at once by the hearers, 
while at Corinth a tongue was spoken unintelligible to the hearer, and required 
to be interpreted. At Pentecost the speaker understood what he said ; while it 
is not perfectly clear that the speakers always understood what they uttered. 
Dr. Charles Hodge, however, regarding the gift spoken of by Paul as identical 
with that vouchsafed at Pentecost, thinks that the speaker, even when unintel- 
ligible to others, understood himself, at least generally, even when he was 
wholly unable to interpret in his own native tongue. Dr. J. A. Alexander 
says: ‘* Other tongues can only mean languages different from their own, and 
by necessary implication previously unknown.” “ The attempt to make this 
phrase mean a new style, or a new strain, or new forms of expression is not only 
unnatural, but inconsistent with the following narrative, where everything im- 
plies a real difference of language.” Dr. Lechler, in Lange, declares: ‘‘The 
narrative does not allow a single doubt to remain in an unprejudiced mind, 
that we are, here already in verse 4th, to understand a speaking of foreign lan- 
guages, which were new to the speakers themselves.”” And in reference to 
1 Cor. xiv., he says: ‘‘ The parallel passages claim respectively, at the outset, 
an interpretation of their own, independently of each other,” and adds, “It 
appears, then, that certain essential features of both occurrences are the same, 
while important differences between the two are discoverable.” 

Calvin says: “I suppose it doth manifestly appear hereby that the Apostles 
had the variety and understanding of languages given unto them, that they 
might speak unto the Greek in Greek, and unto the Italians in the Italian 
tongue, and that they might have true communication and conference with 
their hearers.” 

Dr. Jacobson, Bishop of Chester, says : ‘‘ Nothing short of the sudden com- 
munication of the power of speaking languages, of which there had been pre- 
viously no colloquial knowledge, and which were not learned in the ordinary 
course, can have been implied by this statement, reiterated as it is in vv. 6, 8, 
and 11. None of the suggestions of vehement excitement, for a time affecting 
the organs of speech, so as to render it more or less unintelligible, of ecstatic 
inarticulate utterances, of the use of archaic words or poetic phraseology, or of 
new modes of interpreting ancient prophecies, can be accepted as at all ade- 


74 NOTES. 


quate to this narrative.” For a full discussion of the subject see Schaff’s 
“ History of the Christian Church,’ vol. i., pp. 224-245. 


(v) Hades. V. 27. 


A Greek word which, from its derivation, means that which is not seen, 
and is used to designate the invisible state—the infernal regions—the abode 
of the dead. In the Septuagint it is used as a translation of the He- 
brew word Sheol. We have no appropriate word in English to express what is 
meant by the word Hades. The word occurs in the N. T. eleven times, and is 
rendered by the word hell in every instance except one (1 Cor. xv. 55), where it 
is rendered grave. In no instance does it mean hell as that word is now com- 
monly understood—the place of punishment for the wicked after judgment— 
nor in any case does it necessarily mean grave. When itis said that the soul 
of Christ was not left in Hades—unhappily rendered in our version hell—the 
real meaning is that his soul was not left in the abode of separate spirits, 
whither it went at his death, even as his body did not remain in the grave or 
sepulchre where it was laid after his crucifixion. In the passage from the 16th 
Psalm here quoted by Peter, it would be absurd to understand it as denoting 
the place of the damned, whether the expression be interpreted of David the 
type, or of Jesus Christ the antitype, agreeably to its principal and ultimate 
object.’’ (Campbell.) Doubtless from this passage the article of the Apostles’ 
Creed is deriyed, ‘‘ He descended into hell ;” all that this can mean is that the 
soul of Christ at his death was separated from his body, and entered the abode 
of separate spirits, called by himself paradise. For interesting and instructive 
discussions of this question see Campbell's Dissertation VI., part ii.; Dr. Cra- 
ven (Lange, Revelation) ; and Gloag. 


CRITICAL REMARKS. 


I 
or 


CHAPTER III. 


VER. 3. After é2Aenuoc., Aaßeiv is to be defended, which is wanting in D, min. 
Theophyl. Lucif. and some vss., and is wrongly deleted by Heinr. and Bornem. 
The authorities which omit it are too weak, especially as the complete super- 
fluousness of the word (it is otherwise in ver. 5) rendered its omission very 
natural. — Ver. 6. éye:pac kai] is wanting in B D &, Sahid.; deleted by Bornem. 
But as Peter himself raises up the lame man, ver. 7, this portion of the sum- 
mons would more easily be omitted than added from Luke v. 23, vi. 8; comp. 
vii. 14. Lachm. and Tisch. have the form &yeıoe ; rightly, see on Matt. ix. 5 ; 
Mark ii. 9. — Ver. 7. After 7jyepe, A BC N, min., the vss., and some Fathers, 
have auröv. Adopted by Lachm. A usual addition. — Ver. 11. auroü] Elz. has 
Tod iafevtoc ywiod, against decisive testimony. A church-lesson begins with 
ver. 11. — Ver. 13. kat 'Ioaax x. 'Iaxw3] Lachm. and Bornem. read kai Oed¢ 
’Ioaak, x. Oeöc *Iaxw3, following A C D N, 15, 18, 25, several vss., Chrys., and 
Theophyl. From Matt. xxii. 32 (therefore also several of these witnesses have 
the article before Oecd), and LXX. Ex. iii. 6. —yév] is wanting in Elz., but is 
to be defended on the authority of A BCE, min., vss., and Fathers, and 
because no corresponding dé follows. — Ver. 18. aizod (not atrod) is, with 
Lachm. and Tisch., according to decisive evidence, to be placed after Xpıoröv, 
and not after roognrov (Elz. Scholz). — Ver. 20. mporeyeipıouevov] Elz.: mporern- 
pvyuévov, against decisive evidence. A gloss (vv. 18, 21 ff.) more precisely de- 
fining the meaning according to the context (comp. also xiii. 23 £.). — Ver. 21. 
Tov] Elz.: ravrov, against decisive testimony, Introduced to make the state- 
ment stronger, in accordance with ver. 24. — dz’ aidvoc] is wanting in D, 19, 
Arm. Cosm. Tert. Ir.; so Born. It was considered objectionable, because, 
strictly speaking, no prophets existed az’ aidvoc. The position after d)/wv 
(Lachm. Tisch.) is so decidedly attested that it is not to be derived from Luke 
1. 70. — Ver. 22. Instead of yév, Elz. has piv ydp, against decisive evidence. 
yap was written on the margin, because the connection was not understood. 
— poe roöc rarépac] is wanting in A BC N, min. Syr. Copt. Vulg. It is placed 
after eizev in DE, vss., and Fathers. So Born. Rightly deleted by Lachm. 
and Tisch. An addition by way of gloss. — Ver. 23. Instead of é£0/o0fp., ABC 
D, Lachm. Born. Tisch. read éfoAc#p. An etymological alteration, which often 
occurs also in Codd. of the LXX. Comp. the variations in Heb. xi. 28.—Ver. 
24. karnyysılav]) Elz.: mpokarnyyeılav, against decisive evidence. A gloss of 
more precise definition. — Ver. 25. of vioi] Elz.: vioi. But the article, which 
before vioi was easily left out by a transcriber, is supported by preponderant 
witnesses, as is also the év wanting before 7@ or£pu. in Elz., which was omitted 
as superfluous. — Ver. 26. After aitoi Elz. has "Ijooiv, against many and im- 
portant authorities. A familiar addition, although already read in A B. — 
tuov] C, min. vss. Ir. have alrov (so Lachm.) or aizot. The original dudv was 
first changed into airod (in conformity with éxaorov), and then the plural 
would be easily inserted on account of the collective sense. The pronoun is 
entirely wanting in B. 


76 CHAP, III, 1-8. 


Ver. 1. After the description of the first peaceful and prosperous life of 
the church, Luke now, glancing back to ii. 43, singles out from the multi- 
tude of apostolic répara x. onueia that one with which the first persecution was 
associated. — ir! rd aurö] here also in a local reference ;' not merely at the 
same time and for the same object, but also in the same way, i.e. together, 
yay, 2 Sam. 2.c. Prominence is here given to the united going to the 
temple and the united working, directing special attention to the keeping 
together of the two chief apostles. — av&ßaıvov] they were in the act of going 
up. — ml THY Gpav THC mpooevxnc] Eri, used of the dejinition of time, in so far 
as a thing extends to a space of time.? Hence: during the hour, not equiv- 
alent to repi ryv @pav.* Concerning the three hours of prayer among the 
Jews: the third (see on ii. 15), the stzth (noon), and the ninth (that of the 
evening sacrifice in the temple), see Lightfoot, Schoettgen, and Wetstein, 
in loc. Comp. x. 3, 9.—The Attic mode of writing &varyv is decidedly at- 
tested in the Book of Acts. 

Ver. 2. XwAöc Ex Kowa. unrp.] born lame. Comp. xiv. 8; John ix. 1. And 
he was above forty years old, iv. 22.—The imperfect &ßaoralero, he was 
being brought, denotes the action in reference to the simultaneous avéBacvor, 
ver. 1; and ériMovv, its daily repetition. — tiv Aeyou. opaiav] which bears the 
by-name,* “* Beautiful.” The proper name was, ‘‘ gate of Nicanor.’’ It lay 
on the eastern side of the outermost court of the temple, leading towards 
the valley of Kidron, and is described by Josephus, Bell. v. 5. 3, as sur- 
passingly splendid: ro» dé muAov ai pév évvéa xpvoo Kai apybpw Kexadvppévat 
mavrayxödev oar, Öuolwe TE TapaoTadec Kai ra omépOvpa’ pia 0& m ESwdev TOV ven 
Kopıvdiov xaAkov Toad TH Tih TAG KaTapybpovcg Kat mepıynboovs Vrepayovoa. Kat 
dvo uévy éxaotov Tov TvA@vog Obpat, TpLaKovTa dE THYaV TO bog ExdoTHC, Kal TO 
mAdtoc qv mevreraidera. Others (Wagenseil, Lund, Bengel, Walch) under- 
stand it of the gate Susan, which was in the neighbourhood of Solomon’s 
porch, and at which the market for pigeons and other objects for sacrifice 
was held. But this is at variance with the signification of the word opaiog ; 
for the name Susan 1s to be explained from the Persian capital (Ww, town 
of lilies), which, according to Middoth, 1 Kal. 3, was depicted on the gate.° 
Others (Kuinoel, et. al.) think that the gate Chulda, i.e. tempestiva, leading 
to the court of the Gentiles, is meant.° But this derivation of the name (from 
In, tempus) cannot be hıstorically proved, nor could Luke expect his 
reader to discover the singular appellation porta tempestiva in öpalav, seeing 
that for this the very natural ‘‘ porta speciosa’’ (Vulg.) could not but sug- 
gest itself.—Among the Gentiles also beggars sat at the gates of their temples "— 
a usage probably connected with the idea (also found in ancient Israel) of 
a special divine care for the poor *— roi alreiv] eo fine, ut peteret. 


1See on i. 15; comp. LXX. 2 Sam. ii. 13; the gate of the temple is only an invention on 


Joseph. Anit. xvi. 8. 6. account of the name, and the latter might be 
2 See on Mark xv. 1; Nägelsb. on the Ziiad, sufficiently explained from the lily-shaped 

p. 284, ed. 3. decorations of the columns (WAY NwyD 
3 Alberti, Odss., Valckenaer, Winer, and 1 Kings v. 19). 

many others. 6 See Lightf. Hor. ad. Joh. p. 946 f. 
4 Sce Schaefer, Melet. p. 14. 7 Martial. i. 112. 


5 Perhaps, however, this picture of Susa on & Hermann, Privatalterth. § 14. 2. 


HEALING OF A LAME MAN. fire 


Vv. 3-5. MéA2ovrac eicılvar eis r. iep.] For it was through this outermost 
gate that the temple proper was reached. — jp&ra £enuoo. Aaß.]| he asked 
that he might receive an alms. Modes of expression used in such a case, Merere 
in me; In me benefac tibi, and the like, may be seen in Vajicra rabb. f. 20, 
3, 4. — On Aaßeiv, which in itself might be dispensed with, see Winer, p. 
565 [E. T. 760]. — arevioac . . . BAéWov eis yuäc] They would read from his 
look, whether he was spiritually fitted for the benefit to be received. 
‘““ Talis intuitus non caruit peculiari Spiritus motu ; hine fit, ut tam secure 
de miraculo pronuntiet,’’ Calvin. Comp xiii. 9. — öreiyev aitoic] The sup- 
plying of röv vovv serves to make the sense clear. Comp. Luke xiv. 7; 1 
Tim. iv. 16. He was attentive, intent upon them.‘ 

Ver. 6. Aidonı] I give thee herewith. —iv ro övöu. . . . mepıräreı) by virtue 
of the name (now pronounced) of Jesus the Messiah, the Nazarene, arise and 
walk. év denotes that on which the rising and walking were causally 
dependent. Mark xvi. 17; Luke x. 17; Acts iv. 10, xvi. 18. Comp. the 
utterance of Origen, c. Cels. 1, against the assertion of Celsus, that Chris- 
tians expelled demons by the help of evil spirits: rocotroy yap divata 76 
évoua tov 'Incov. This name was the focus of the power of faith, through 
which the miraculous gift of the apostles operated. Comp. on Matt. vii. 
22; Luke ix. 49, x. 17; Mark xvi. 17. A dico or the like is not (in oppo- 
sition to Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and others) to be supplied with &v r. ovou. 
x.t.2. Observe, moreover, first, the solemnity of the ’Ijcov Xpiorov tov Nat. ; 
and secondly, that Xporov, as in ii. 38, cannot yet be a proper name. Comp. 
John xvii. 3, i. 42. 

Vv. 7, 8. Avröv rac de£ıäc] comp. Mark ix. 27, and see Valckenaer, ad 
Theoer. iv. 35. — éorepeatycav| his feet were strengthened, so that they now 
performed their function, for which they bad been incapacitated in the 
state of lameness, of supporting the body in its movements. — ai Bacere are 
the feet.” — ra odvpa: the ankle-bones, tali (very frequent in the classics), 
after the general expression subjoining the particular. — é£a226uevoc], 
springing up, leaping into the air. Not: easiliens, videlicet e grabbato 
(Casaubon), of which last there is no mention. — kai eionAPe . . . Tov Oedv] 
This behaviour bears the most natural impress of grateful attachment 
(comp. ver. 11), lively joy (repırar. Kai d22A6uevoc, — at the same time as an 
involuntary proof of his complete cure for himself and for others), and 
religious elevation. The view of Thiess—that the beggar was only a 
pretended cripple who was terrified by the threatening address of Peter into 
using his feet, and afterwards, for fear of the rage of the people, prudently 
attached himself to the apostles—changes the entire narrative, and makes 
the apostle himself (vv. 12, 16, iv. 9, 10) the deceiver. Peter had wrought 
the cure in the possession of that miraculous power of healing which Jesus 
had imparted to His apostles (Luke ix. 1), and the supernatural result can- 
not in that case, any more than in any other miracle, warrant us to deny 


1Comp. Schweigh. Lex. Herod. I. p. 241, 5; Plat. Tim. p. 92 A, and in later Greek 
and Lex. Polyb. p. 238. writers. [LXX. Iea. lv. 12. 
2 Asin Wisd. xiii. 18; Joseph. Antt. vii. 5. 3 Xen. Cyr. vii. 1. 82; Anab. vii. 3. 33; 


78 CHAP. III., 10-15. 


its historical character, as is done by Zeller, who supposes that the general 
xwAol repixarovow, Luke vii. 22, Matt. xv. 31, has here been illustrated in 
an individual instance. 

Ver. 10. ’Ereytvworov auröv, örı x.7.A2.] A well-known attraction.’ — rpöc 
THY éAennoc.| for the sake of alms. — 6 kadnuevoc] See on John ix. 8. —éni ri 
immediately at ; on the spot of the Beautiful gate. See on 
John iv. 6.— Haußovs Kat éxotdc.| astonishment and surprise at what had 
happened to him—an exhaustive designation of the highest degree of 
wonder.? 

Ver. 11. Kparoivroc] But as he held fast Peter and John, i.e. in the impulse 
of excited gratitude took hold of them and clung to them, in order not to be 
separated from his benefactors.”° There is no sanction of usage for the 
meaning commonly given, and still adopted by Olshausen and De Wette: 
assectari. For in Col. ii. 19 xpareiv occurs in its proper sense, to hold fast ; 
the LXX. 2 Sam. iii. 6 is not at all in point, and in Achill. Tat. v. p. 309, 
Ere yelper je kpareiv is’: me retinere conabatur. — As to the porch of Solomon, 
see on John x. 23. — éx@ay3or] the plural after the collective noun 6 Aaöc.* 

Ver. 12. ’Arexpivato] he began to speak, as a reply to the astonishment and 
concourse of the people, which thereby practically expressed the wish for 
an explanation. See on Matt. xi. 25. Observe the honourable address, ävdp. 
’Iop., as in ii. 22, v. 35, xiii. 16, xxi. 28.—ri Oavudlere éxi rotvtw;]. The 
wonder of the people, namely, was unfounded, in so far as they regarded 
the healing as an effect of the düvauıc 7 evoeß. of the apostles themselves. — 
robr~| is neuter; see ver. 10: at this. As to the 7, an, introducing the 
second question, observe that the course of thought without interrogation 
is as follows: Your astonishment is groundless, provided that you were rea- 
sonably entitled to regard ws as the workers of this cure. The 7 is accord- 
ingly : or else, if you think that you must wonder why, etc. — juiv emphat- 
ically prefixed : id/a is then correlative. —eiceBeia] ‘quasi sit praemium 
pietatis nostrae a Deo nobis concessum,’’ Heinrichs. In us lies neither the 
causa effectiva nor the causa meritoria. — meromköoı tow repiz. aitév| to be 
taken together: as if we had been at work, in order that he might walk. That 
this telic designation of that which was done is given with the genitive of the 
infinitive, is certainly to be traced to the frequent use of this form of ex- 
pression in the LXX.°; but the conception of the aim is not on that ac- 
count to be obliterated as the defining element of the expression, especially 
as even in classical writers this mode of conception is found, and presents 
itself in the expression roveiv Orwc.° The roeiv is conceived as striving. 

Ver. 13. Connection: Do not regard this cure as our work (ver. 12) ; no, 
God, the peculiar God of our fathers, glorified (by this cure),” His servant 


Opaia rn.) Ent: 


ı Winer, p. 581 (E. T. 781). 4 Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. 11.1.6. Ast. ad 


2 Comp. dadua cat OauBos, Plut. de audit. 8. 
145, and similar expressions, Lobeck, Parad. 
p. 60 f. 

3 Comp. John xx. 23; Rev. ii. 25, iii. 11; 
Song of Sol. iii. 4: exparnoa avrov kat our apjKa 
avtov, Polyb. viii. 20.8; Eur. Phoen. 600; 
Plut. Mor. p. 99D. 


Plat. Legg. 1. p. 63. Nägelsb. on the Iliad, 
ii. 278. Comp. Acts v. 16 

5 See Winer, p. 306 (E. T. 410). 

6 See, e.g., Herod. i. 117: 


Omws Egraı 7 Iwvin EAevdepn, V. 


TOLELY 4, 6 ay 

109, i. 209. 

Comp. mpaoceıv önws, Krüger on Thuc. 1. 56. 
7 Comp. John ix. 3f., xi. 4. 


PETER’S DISCOURSE. 79 


Jesus, whom you delivered up, ete.—what a stinging contrast ! — +. rar£pwv 
nz. | embraces the three patriarchs. Comp. on Rom. ix. 5. — The venerated 
designation : ‘‘the God of Abraham,’ etc. (Ex. iii. 15 f.), heightens the 
blame of the contrast. — &öö5ace] namely, inasmuch as He granted such a 
result by means of His name (ver. 6). —röv caida] is not to be explained, 
after the Vulgate, with the older interpreters (and still by Heinrichs, Kui- 
noel), as filium, since only viöc Ocov is throughout used of Christ in this 
sense ; but with Piscator, Bengel, Nitzsch,' Olshausen, de Wette, Baum- 
garten, and others, as seroum ; and the designation of the Messiah as the 
fulfiller of the divine counsel: servant of God, has arisen from Isa. x].-Ixvi. 
namely, from the Messianic reference of the MM! 72), there. Comp. Matt. 
xii. 18. So also in ver. 26, iv. 27, 50. Observe that an apostle is never 
called raic (but only dovAoc) Ocod. Comp. especially iv. 29 f. — dv üueic pév] 
This «£v, which pierces the conscience of the hearers, is not followed by 
any corresponding dé. Comp. oni. 1. The connection before the mind of 
Luke was: whom you have indeed delivered up, ete., but God has raised from 
the dead. But by xpivavroc éxeivov arorvew he was led away from carrying 
out this sentence, and induced to give to it another turn. — rapedéxare| 
namely, to Pilate. — jpvicacte aitév] i.e. ye have denied that He is the Mes- 
siah, John xix. 14, 15; Luke xxiii. 2. Comp. also vii. 35. The object of 
the denial was obvious of itself, since Jesus had just been spoken of as 
the raic tov Ocov. Observe, moreover, that with 7pv70. auröv the relative 
construction is not carried on, but with rhetorical emphasis the sentence is 
continued independent of it: and ye have denied Him.” This is in keeping 
with the liveliness of the discourse and its antitheses ; but without such a 
breaking off of the construction auröv would be quite superfluous, as the 
regimen remains the same as before. — xara rpöowrov] towards the face; ye 
have denied Him even unto the face of Pilate, so audaciously! Comp. Gal. 
ii. 11. There is no Hebraism.* — kpivavroc éxeivov aroavew] although the latter 
had decided to release (him). See John xix. 4; Luke xxiii. 16.  éxefvov is 
designedly used instead of airoi, in order to make the contrast felt between 
what Pilate judged and what they did.* Chrys. well says: öweic éxeivov 
Berncavroc ovK HOEAHCaTE. 

Vv. 14, 15. 'Yueic dé] Contrast to xpivavtog éx. amoAveı, ver. 13. — röv 
äyıov Kai dixacor| the kar’ &£oxrv Holy; consecrated to God, inasmuch as He is 
the M7 12}, and Just, innocent and entirely righteous, see on John xvi. 
10. Comp. Isa. liii. 11. To this characteristic description of Jesus ävdpa 
govéa, Barabbas,° forms a purposely chosen contrast : @ man who was a mur- 
derer. It is more emphatic, more solemn, than the simple govéa; but 
avipwrov govéa would have been more contemptuous, Bernhardy, p. 48. — 
xapıodijvar buiv] condonari vobis," that he should by way of favour be delivered to 


1 Stud. u. Krit. 1828, p. 331 ff. cor. p. 319; and tke examples from Plato in 

2 Comp. Bernhardy, p. 304: Kühner, § 799. Ast, Lex. I. p. 658. 

3See Jacobs, ad Achill. Tat. p. 612; Schweig- 5 See Luke xxiii. 19 ; comp. on John xviii. 40. 
häuser, Lew. Polyb. p. 540. 6 Comp. Soph. O. (. 948 : avépa marpokrovor, 


* Comp. ver. 14. See Krüger and Kühner, O. R. 842: avSpas Ancras. 
ad Xen. Anab. iv. 3.20; Dissen, ad Dem. de 7 Ducker, ad Flor. iii. 5. 10, 


80 CHAP. III., 16-19. 


you.’ — Tov dé apynyov tij¢ Conc] forms a double contrast, namely, to dvdpa 
govéa and to amexteivare. It means: the author? of life, inasmuch as Christ 
by His whole life-work up to His resurrection was destined (vv. 20, 21) to 
provide eternal life, all that is included in the Messianic cwrypia (Heb. ii. 10). 
See John iii. 16, xi. 25; 2 Tim. 1. 10. The inclusion, however, of physical 
life (de Wette, Hackett), according to the idea of John i. 4, has no support 
in the text, nor would it have been so understood by the hearers, although 
even Chrysostom comes ultimately to the idea of the original Living one. — 
dv 6 Ocd¢ . . . Ov jueic K.r.A.] great in its simplicity. ‘The latter, in which 
ov is neuter, is the burden of the apostolic consciousness. Comp. on li. 32. 
Observe, moreover, on vv. 14, 15: ‘‘ Graphice sane majestatem illam aposto- 
licam expressit, quam illi fuisse in dicendo vel una ejus testatur epistola,”’ 
Erasmus. The Zpistle of Peter is written as with runic characters. 

Ver. 16. “Eri 19 mioreı Tov övöu. abrov] on account of faith in His name 
(which we acknowledge as that of the Messiah), i.e. because we believe in 
His Messiahship. On ézi, of the cause on which the fact rests, on the ground 
of, see Bernhardy, p. 250; as to the genitive of the object with riorıc, see 
on Rom. iii. 22. Others—particularly Rosenmüller, Heinrichs, and Ols- 
hausen—understand äri of the aim.” in order that faith in Jesus may be 
excited in you (and at the same time in the healed man himself, according to 
Olshausen). But the very connection of thought is in favour of the first 
explanation. For «ai éxi rn rioreı «.r.A. attaches itself closely to the pre- 
ceding ov jueic waptrpéc Eouev ; so that Peter, immediately after mentioning 
the testimony, brings forward the extraordinary efficacy of the faith on 
which this apostolic testimony is based. Still more decisive is the paral- 
lelism of the second clause of the verse, in which the thought of the first 
clause is repeated emphatically, and with yet more precise definition. — 7d 
évoua abrov] so far, namely, as the cure was effected by means of His name 
pronounced, ver. 6. Observe the weighty repetition and position at the end. 
—7 riorıce 9 de avtov| the faith wrought (in us) through Him. Through 
Christ was the faith, namely, in Him as the Messiah, wrought in Peter and 
John, and in the apostles generally, partly by means of His whole manifes- 
tation and ministry during His life (Matt. xvi. 16; John i. 14), partly by 
means of the resurrection and effusion of the Spirit. The view which takes 
miotic Of trust in God brought about through Christ,‘ is not in keeping with 
the first half of the verse, which has already specifically determined the 
object of riorıs. — ralırmv] deırrıröc. For the bodily soundness of the man, 
who was present (ver. 11), was apparent to their eyes.’ — arévavri rävr. bu. | 
corresponds to öv @ewpeite in the first clause of the verse. The faith, etc., 
gave to him this restoration in the presence of you all ; so that no other way 
of its coming to pass was at all to be thought of. 

Vv. 17, 18. Peter now pitches his address in a tone of heart-winning 


1 Plut. C. Gracch. 4; Acts xxv. 11, xxvii. 4 Comp. 1 Pet. i. 21; Weiss, Petr. Lehrbegr. 
24, Philem. 22. See Loesner, Odss. p. 172 f. p. 824; dibl. Theol. p. 139, after de Wette. 

2 Heb. ii. 10, xii. 2; Mic. i.18; 1 Macc. ix. 5 On öAorAnp., comp. Plut. Mor. p. 1063 F; 
61; Plat. Zocr. p. 96 C; Tim. p. 21E. Plat. Tim. p. 44 Ci odAdKAnpos vyujs TE mar- 


3 Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 475. TEAWS. 


REPENTANCE URGED. 81 


gentleness, setting forth the putting to death of Jesus (1) as a deed of ig- 
norance (ver. 17) and (2) as the necessary fulfilment of the divine counsel 
(ver. 18). — kai viv] and now, i.e. et sic, itaque ; so that viv is to be under- 
stood not with reference to time, but as: in this state of matters." — adeAgoi] 
familiar, winning. Chrys. : aitav rag yuxäc eiféws rn TOV adeAp@v mpoonyopia 
rapsuvßnoaro. Comp. on the other hand, ver. 12: avdpe¢ "Iopankiraı. — xara 
äyvorav] unknowingly (Lev. xxii. 14), since you had not recognised Him as 
the Messiah ; spoken quite in the spirit of Jesus. See Luke xxiii. 34; 
comp. xiii. 27. ** Hoc ait, ut spe veniae eos excitet,’’ Pricaeus. Comp. 
also 1 Pet. 1.14. The opposite: xara mpößeow, kara mpoaipeow. — Gorep Kai ot 
apy. tuav|] namely, have acted ignorantly. Wolf (following the Peshito) 
refers the comparison merely to ämpd£are : scio vos ignorantia adductos, ut 
Jaceretis sicut duces vestri. But it would have been unwise if Peter, in order 
to gain the people, had not purposed to represent in the same mild light 
the act also of the Sanhedrists (äpyovrec), on whom the people depended. 
Comp. 1 Cor. ii. 8. — Ver. 18. But that could not but so happen, etc. 
Comp. Luke xxiv. 44 ff. — ravrwy r@v tpooyrav| comp. Luke xxiv. 27. The 
expression is neither to be explained as a hyperbole (Kuinoel) nor from the 
typical character of history (Olshausen), but from the point of view of ful- 
Jilment, in so far as the Messianic redemption, to which the divine predic- 
tion of all the prophets referred (com. x. 43), has been realized by the suf- 
ferings and death of Jesus. Looking back from this standpoint of histor- 
ical realization, it is with truth said: God has brought into fulfilment that 
which He declared beforehand by all the‘ prophets, that His Messiah should 
suffer. On r. Xpioröv aurov, comp. iv. 26; Luke ji. 26, ix. 20; Rev. xi. 15, 
xii. 10. —oi7w] so, as it has happened, vers. 14, 15, 17. 

Ver. 19. Oöv] infers from ver. 17 f. — ueravonoare] see on ii. 38. The 
éxtotpéware (comp. xxvi. 20), connected with it, expresses the positive con- 
sequence of the weravoeiv. ‘‘ Significatur in resipiscente applicatio sui ad 
Deum,’’ Bengel. — eic 7d é£aAero4. x.7.2.] contains the aim, namely, the medi- 
ate aim: the final aim is contained in ver. 20, which repentance and con- 
version ought to have. The idea of the forgiveness of sins is here repre- 
sented under the figure of the erasure of a hand-writing.* Baptism is not 
here expressly named, as in ii. 38, but was now understood of itself, see- 
ing that not long before thousands were baptized ; and the thought of it 
has suggested the figurative expression &£aAeıoA. : in order that they may 
be blotted out, namely, by the water of baptism. The causa meritoria of the 
forgiveness of sins is contained in ver. 18 (xafeiv tov X.).” The causa appre- 
hendens (faith) is contained in the required repentance and conversion. 

Ver. 20. The final aim of the preceding exhortation. In order that times of 
refreshing may come. Peter conceives that the xaıpor avapiews and the Parousia 


1 Since, in fact, only by this self-manifesta- loc. See also vii. 34, x. 5, xxii. 16; John ii. 
tion of the risen Christ must the true light 28; 2 John 5. 


concerning Him who was formerly rejected 2 See on Col. ii. 14. Comp. Ps. li. 9; Isa. 
and put to death have dawned upon you; xliii. 25; Dem. 791. 12: &&aAnAurraı To obAnna. 
otherwise you could not have so treated Him. 3 Comp. Weiss, Petr. Lehrbegr. p. 258. 


Comp. Xen. Anad. iv. 1.19, and Kühner in 


82 CHAP), MTs, (20,21. 


(kat arooreiAn x.7.A.) (M) will set in, as soon as the Jewish nation is converted to 
the acknowledgment of Jesus asthe Messiah. It required a further revelation 
to teach him that the Gentiles also were to be converted—and that directly, 
and not by the way of proselytism—to Christ (chap. x.). — öroc av, with the 
subjunctive,' denotes the purpose that is to be attained in dependence on a 
supposition, here, in this event ; if ye comply with the summons.” This dv, 
consequently, is not equivalent to éav (Vulg. : ut cum venerint), in which 
case an apodosis which would be wanting is arbitrarily supplied in 
thought (see Erasmus and, recently, Beelen). Others (Beza, Castalio, Eras- 
mus Schmid, Eckermann, é al.) consider ézwc as a particle of time — ore: 
quandocungue venerint. Against this it may be decisively urged, in point 
of linguistic usage, that in Greek writers (in Herod. and the poets) the 
temporal öroc is joined with the indicative or optative, but does not occur 
at all in the N. T.; and, in point of fact, the remission of sins takes place 
not for the first time at the Parousia, but at once on the acceptance of the 
gospel. — xacpoi avayig.| seasons of refreshing : namely, the Messianic, as 1s 
self-evident and 1s clear from what follows. It is substantially the same as 
is meant in Luke 11. 25 by rapaxAnoıc tov “Icpaya, — namely, seasons ın which, 
through the appearance of the Messiah in his kingdom, there shall occur blessed 
rest and refreshment for the people of God, after the expiration of the troub- 
lous seasons of the alöv oi7o¢.* The alövec oi &repyöuevor: in Chap. 11. 7 are 
not different from these future xa:poi. This explanation is shown to be 
clearly right by the fact that Peter himself immediately adds, as explana- 
tory of kacpot avait. : Kai amooreiAn TOV mpokexeip. buiv Ino. X., which points 
to the Parousia. Others rationalizing have, at variance with the text, ex- 
plained the xacpoi ava. either of the time of rest after death,* or of deliver- 
ance from the yoke of the ceremonial law,’ or of the putting off of penal 
judgment on the Jews,° or of the sparing of the Christians amidst the de- 
struction of the Jews,’ or of the glorious condition of the Christian church 
before the end of the world.* On avayvicc, comp. LXX. Ex. viii. 15 ; Aq. 
Isa. xxviil. 12; Strabo, x. p. 459. — arö rpocdrov tov kupiov) The times, 
which are to appear, are rhetorically represented as something real, which 
is to be found with God in heaven, and comes thence, from the face of God, 
to earth. Thus God is designated as airıoc of the times of refreshing (Chry- 
sostom). — rov mporex. iuiv ’I. X.] Jesus the Messiah destined for you (for your 
nation). On rpoyerpifoua (xxii. 14, xxvi. 16), properly, / take in hand ; 
then, I undertake, I determine, and with the accusative of the person : J ap- 
point one.” Analogous is 6 tov Ocov éxAextéc, Luke xxiil, 35. 

Ver. 21. Whom the heaven must receive as the place of abode appointed 


xv. 17; Luke ii. 35; Rom. iii. 4; Matt. 4 Schulz in the Bidl. Hag. V. p. 119 ff. 
NARBE 6 Kraft, Obss. sacr. fasc. IX. p. 271 ff. 

2See Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 289; Klotz, 6 Barkey. 
ad Devar. p. 685 f. 7 Grotius, Hammond, Lightfoot. 

332) DIMeenls edie: (Gale ae ACIS xine, 8 Vitringa. 
Analogous 1s the conception of karamavaıs ® Comp. 2 Mace. iii. 7, viii. 9; Polyb. vi. 


and saßßarıcuös in the Epistle to the Hebrews. 58. 3; Plut. Galb. 8; Diod. Sic. xii. 22; 
Comp. äveoıs. 2 Thess. i. 7, and the descrip- Wetstein and Kypke én loc.; Schleusn. Zies. 
tion given in Rev. xxi. 4 f. iv. p 513. 


THE PAROUSIA. 83 


for Him by God until the Parousia. Taken thus,’ oipavév is the subject,? 
and dei does not stand for éde, as if Peter wished historically to narrate the 
ascension ; but the present tense places before the eyes the necessity of the 
elevation of Christ into heaven as an absolute relation, which as such is 
constantly present until the Parousia (ver. 20, and äypı ypdvwv x.r.A., ver. 
21). Hence also the infinitive is not of the duration of the action (d£yeodaı), 
but of its absolute act (défacfar). Others find the subject in öv: who must 
occupy heaven (so Luther and many of the older Lutherans, partly in the 
interest of Christ’s ubiquity; also Bengel, Heinrichs, Olshausen, Lange, 
Weiss, et al.) ; ‘‘ Christus coelum debuit occupare ceu regiam suam,”’ Ca- 
lovius. But against this view the linguistic usage of déyeofa:, which never 
signifies oceupare,* is decisive.*—On the pév solitarium Grotius aptly re- 
marks, that it has its reference in äypı ypdvov arokaraor., ‘quasi dicat : 
ubıillud tempus venerit, ex coeloin terras redibit.’? — aype xp6vov arokaraor. 
ravrwov] until times shall have come, in which all things will be restored. Before 
such times set in, Christ comes not from heaven. Consequently the times 
of the alöv 6 wéAdwv ıtself—the xaıpor avapisewe—cannot be meant ; but only 
such tımes as shall precede the Parousia, and by the emergence of which it 
is conditioned, that the Parousia shall ensue. Accordingly the explanation 
of the universal renewal of the world unto a glory such as preceded the fall? is 
excluded, seeing that that restoration of all things (ravrwov) coincides with the 
Parousia, in opposition to de Wette, as well as many older expositors, who 
think on the resurrection and the judgment. The correct interpretation 
must start from Mal. iv. 6 as the historical seat of the expression, and from 
Matt. xvii. 11, where Christ Himself, taking ıt from Malachi, has made it 
His own. Accordingly the azoxaracracic ravrwv can only be the restoration 
of all moral relations to their original normal condition. Christ’s reception 
in heaven—this is the idea of the apostle—continues until the moral cor- 
ruption of the people of God is removed, and the thorough moral renovation, 
the ethical restitutio in integrum, of all their relations shall have ensued. 
Then only is the exalted Christ sent from heaven to the people, and then 
only does there come for the latter the avayvéic from the presence of God, 
ver. 20. What an incitement neither to neglect nor to defer repentance 
and conversion as the means to this azoxatacract ravrwv ! The mode in 
which this moral restitution must take place is, according to ver. 22, be- 
yond doubt,—namely, by rendering obedience in all points to what the 


1 Gregory of Nazianzus, Orat. 2 de fil., 
already hasevidently this view : det yap avrov 
. dm’ ovpavod SexOqvar, and Oecumenius 
calls heaven the amodoxn Tov ameotaAuevov. 
The Vulgate repeats the ambiguity of the 
original: quem oportet coelum quidem susci- 
pere ; but yet appears, by suscipere, to betray 
the correct view. Clearly and definitely Cas- 
talio gives it with a passive turn: “quem 
oportet coelo capi.” 
2 Beza, Piscator, Castalio, and others, the 
Socinians, also Kuinoel, de Wette, Baum- 
garten, Lechler, Hackett. 


3 We should have to explain it as: who 
must accept the heaven (comp. Bengel). But 
what a singularly turgid expression would 
that be! 

4 Comp. on the other hand, Plat. 7heaet. p. 
177 A: TeAevrnoavras altos Exeivos méev 0 TOV 
karav Kkafapos Toros ov Sefetar, Soph. Zrach. 
1075: Gvakt Atdy Scfar we. Occupare would be 
Comp. Soph. Ant. 605: karexeıs 
'OAvumov nappapdercav alykav. 

5 maAryyevecia, Matt. xix. 23; comp. Rom. 
viii. 18 ff.; 2 Pet. iii. 13. 


KATEXELY. 


84 CHAP, IIL, 22-24. 


Messiah has during His earthly ministry spoken. Observe, moreover, that 
mavrov is not masculine,’ but neuter, as in Matt. xvii. 11, Mark ix. 12 
(comp. ver. 22, xara mavra, öca) ; and that aroxarasracız cannot be otherwise 
taken than in its constant literal meaning, restoration,” wherein the state 
lost and to be restored is to be conceived as that of the obedience of the 
theocracy toward God and His messenger (ver. 22). The state of forgive- 
ness of sin (ver. 19) is not identical with this, but previous to it, as örwg 
k.7.A. (ver. 20) shows : the sanctification following the reconciliation. — ov 
éAdanoev x.t.A2.| The attracted dv refers to ypövov : of which he has spoken, 
etc.” Others refer it to r4vrwv, and explain: usque ad tempus, quo omnia 
eventum habebunt,* quae, etc. ; by which Peter is supposed to mean either 
the conquest of Messiah’s enemies and the diffusion of the Christian re- 
ligion,° or the destruction of the Jewish state,® or the erection of the Mes- 
sianic kingdom and the changes preceding it, the diffusion of Christianity, 
the resurrection of the dead, and the judgment.” Incorrectly, as arokarao- 
racic, in the sense of impletio, cic wipac &Aßeiv,’ and the like, is without 
warrant in usage; and as little does it admit the substitution of the idea 
realization.” — ar’ aidvoc] since the world began, to be taken relatively. See 
on Luke i, 70. 

Vv. 22-24. Connection: What has just been said: “By the mouth of 
His holy prophets from the beginning,’’ is now set forth more particularly 
in two divisions,—namely : (1) Moses, with whom all O. T. prophecy begins 
(comp. Rom. x. 19), has announced to the people the advent of the Mes- 
siah, and the necessity of obedience to Him, vv. 22,23. Thus has he made 
a beginning in speaking of the arokaraoraoıc ravrwv, which in fact can only 
be brought about by obedience to all which the Messiah has spoken. (2) 
But also the collective body of prophets from Samuel onwards, that is, the 
prophets in the stricter sense, etc., ver. 24 — Mwvo7jc] The passage is Deut. 
xviii. 15 f., 19,'° which, applying according to its historical sense to the 
prophetic order generally which presents itself to the seer collectively as in 
one person, has received its highest fulfilment in Christ as the realized ideal 
of all the Old Testament interpreters of God, consequently as the adnfivoe 
mpooatnc.' Comp. vil. 37. — oc éué] as He has raised up me by His prepara- 


1 Weiss, Petr. Lehrbegr. p. 85, and bidd. 
Theol. p. 145. 


verbal notion is exceedingly harsh. Hofm. 
Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 648, follows the correct 


2 Polyb. iv. 23. 1; v. 2. 11; xxviii. 10.7; 
Dion. Hal. x. 8 ; also Plat. Aw. p. 370. 

3 On Aadeıv rı, in this sense, comp. Matt. 
xxvi. 13; Plat. Aw. p. 366 D; Soph. Phil. 110. 
So also Aéyev tr, to tell of something ; see 
Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apol. p. 23 A; Phaed. p. 
79 B. 

4 Baumgarten, p. 83, endeavours to bring 
out essentially the same meaning, but without 
any change in the idea of amoxaraor., in this 
way : he supplies the verb arokaraotaßnoeodaı 
with oy eAdAnoev, and assuines the kingdom 
of Israel (i. 6) to be meant. To imagine the 
latter reference, especially after ravrwv, 18 
just as arbitrary, as the supplying of that 


reference of av to xpövwr. 

5 Rosenmiiller, Morus, Stolz, Heinrichs. 

® Grotius, Hammond, Bolten. 

7 Kuinoel. 8 Oecumenius, 

® Grotius, Schneckenburger in the Stud. u. 
Krit. 1855, p. 517, Lechler. 

10 See on this passage and its different ex- 
planations, and also on its at any rate 
Messianic idea, Hengstenberg, Christol. I. p. 
110 ff.; G. Baur, alttest. Weissag. I. p. 353 ff. 

11 Calvin appropriately says: “Non modo 
quia prophetarum omnium est princeps, sed 
quod in ipsum dirigebantur omnes superiores 
prophetiae, et quod tandem Deus per 08 ejus 
absolute loquutus est.” Heb. i.1f. 


PROPHECIES FULFILLED. 85 


tion, calling, commission, and effectual communion. Bengel well remarks 
regarding the Messianic fulfilment : ‘‘ Similitudo non officit excellentiae.”’ 
—éora dé] see on ii. 17. — é£o2AoAp. éx. rov Aaov] In the LXX. it runs after 
the original text : &yo éxdicjow é& abrov. Peter, in order to express this 
threat according to its more special import, and thereby in a manner more 
deterrent and more incentive to the obedience required,’ substitutes for it 
the formula which often occurs in the Pentateuch after Gen. xvii. 14: 
MWY MT WHIT WN, which is the appointment of the punishment of 
death excluding forgiveness.* The apostle, according to his insight into 
the Mesgianic reference and significance of the whole passage, understands 
by it, exelusion from the Messianic life and ejection to Gehenna, consequently 
the punishment of eternal death, which will set in at the judgment.* — kai... 
dé] z.e. Moses on the one hand, and all the prophets on the other. Thus over 
against Moses, the beginner, who was introduced by wév, there is placed as 
similar in kind the collective body. See as to «al... dé, on John vi. 51, and 
observe that dé is attached to the emphasized idea appended (ravrec).* — All 
the prophets from Samuel and those that follow, as many as have spoken, have 
also, etc.,—evidently an inaccurate form of expression in which two con- 
structions are mixed up,—namely : (1) <All the prophets from Samuel onward, 
as many of them as have spoken, have also, ete. ; and (2) All the prophets, 
Samuel and those who follow, as many of them as have spoken, have also, etc.’ 
The usual construction since Casaubon, adopted also by Valckenaer and 
Kuinoel, is that of the Vulgate : ‘‘ et omnes prophetae a Samuel, et deinceps 
qui locuti sunt,’’ so that it is construed kai 600 Tav kade£ng 8742. 3 it yields 
a tautology, as those who follow after are already contained in ravrec vi 
mpoozraı arö 2. Van Hengel’s® expedient, that after trav xade£yjc there is 
to be supplied &uc Iwavvov, and after mooprjraı, apSauevoc, is simply arbitrary 
in both cases. —After Moses Samuel opens the series of prophets in the 
strieter sense. He is called in the Talmud also (see Wetstein) magister 
prophetarum. For a prophecy from 2 Sam., see Heb. i. 5.7 —k. ro» xahesjc] 
‘longa temporum successione, uno tamen consensu,’’ Calvin. — räüc juépac 
ravrac] i.e. those days, of which Moses has spoken what has just been quoted, name- 
ly, ‘the xpövor aroxaraor. mavr., which necessarily follows from dv éAddAyoev 6 
Ocd¢ x.r.A., ver. 21. Hence we are not to understand, with Schneckenburger, 
Weiss, Hofmann" the time of the present as referred to; in which view 
Hofmann would change the entire connection, so as to make vv. 22-24 
serve as a reason for the call to repentance in ver. 19, whereas it is evident 
that dv éAadAyoev «.7.2., ver. 21, must be the element determining the fol- 
lowing appeals to Moses and the prophets. 

Ver. 25. Ye’ are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant, i.e. ye belong 


1 Comp. Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 146. [p. 419. 4Comp. Baeuml. Partik. p. 149. 

2 See Gesen. 7hes. II. p. 718; Ewald, Alterin. 6 Winer, p. 588 (E. T. 789). 

3 On e£oAoApevw, funditus perdo, frequent 6 Adnotatt. in loca nonnulla N. T.p. 101 ff. 
in the LXX., the Apocrypha, and in the Zest. 7 Comp. Hengstenberg, Ch7istol. I. p. 143 ff. 
XI. Patr., also in Clem. Rom. who has only 8 Schriftbew. 11.1, p. 140. 
the form e£oAec@p., only known to later Greek, ® Observe the great emphasis of the vets as 


see Kypke, II. p. 27; Sturz, Dial. Mac. p. of the va» (ver. 26). From their position of 
166 f. preference they ought, in the consciousness of 


86 CHAP. III., 26. 


to both, inasmuch as what was promised by the prophets and pledged in the 
covenant is to be realized for and in you, as the recipients in accordance 
with promise and covenant. Comp. ii. 39 ; Rom. ix. 4, xv. 8. On vioi rie 
dıadykns, comp. the rabbinical passages in Wetstein. Concerning viöc, used 
to denote closer connection (like }2), see on Matt. viii. 12. Incorrectly 
Lightfoot, Wolf, and Kuinoel render: ‘‘prophetarum discipuli, Matt. xu. 
27 ; so the Greek raidec ;' because then vioi in the same signification does 
not suit r7c dayne. Hence, incorrectly, also Michaelis, Morus, Heinrichs: 
‘‘e vestra natione provenerunt prophetae.’’ — dvatyjxy, covenant. For God 
bound Himself by covenant to bless all generations through the seed ef Abra- 
ham, on the condition, namely, that Abraham obeyed His command (Gen. 
xii. 1).” So with dıadykmw also in the classics. — xpd¢ Tove mar. ju.] mpdg de- 
notes the ethical direction. Bernhardy, p. 265. Abraham is conceived as 
representative of the forefathers ; hence it is said that God had bound Him- 
self towards the fathers when He spoke to Abraham. — kai év 7@ omipuari cov] 
kai, and, quite as in ji. 17. — The quotation (Gen. xxii. 18; comp. xviil. 
18, xii. 3) is not exactly according to the LXX. According to the Mes- 
sianic fulfilment, from which point of view Peter grasps and presents the 
prophetic meaning of the passage (see ver. 26), &v Ta or. cov is not collec- 
tive, but: in thy descendant, namely, the Messiah (comp. Gal. iii. 16), the 
future blessing of salvation has its causal ground. As to rarpıat, gentes, 
here nations, see on Eph. iii. 15. 

Ver. 26. Progress of the discourse: ‘‘ This bestowal—in accordance with 
God’s covenant-arrangements—of salvation on all nations of the earth 
through the Messiah has commenced with you,’’ to you first has God sent, 
etc. — zpürov] sooner than to all other nations. ‘‘ Praevium indicium de vo- 
catione gentium,’’ Bengel. Rom. i. 16, xi. 11. On this intimation of the 
universality of the Messianic salvation Olshausen observes, that the apostle, 
who at a later period rose with such difficulty to this idea (ch. x.), was 
doubtless, in the first moments of his ministry, full of the Spirit, raised 
above himself, and in this elevation had glimpses to which he was still, as 
regards his general development, a stranger. But this is incorrect : Peter 
shared the views of his people, that the non-Jewish nations would be made 
partakers in the blessings of the Messiah by acceptance of the Jewish theocracy. 
He thus still expected at this time the blessing of the Gentiles through the 
Messiah to take place in the way of their passing through Mosaism. ‘‘ Ca- 
put et summa rei in adventu Messiae in eo continetur, quod omnes omnino 
populi adorent Jovam illumque colant unanimiter.’’* “ Gentes non traditae 
sunt Israeli in hoc saeculo, at tradentur in diebus Messiae.’’* See already 
Isa. ii. 2 f., lx. 3 ff. — üvaoryoac] causing His servant to appear (the aorist 
participle synchronous with dazéor.). This view of ävaor. is required by 
ver. 22. Incorrectly, therefore, Luther, Beza, Heumann, and Barkey: 
after He has raised Him from the dead. — evAoyovvra ipuac| blessing you. The 


their being the people of God, to feel the 2 On dıedero, comp. Heb. viii. 10, x. 16 ; Gen. 
more urgently the duty of accepting the Mes- xv. 18, al. ; 1 Mace. i. 11. 
siah. 3 Mikrae Kodesch, f. 108.1. 


1 Blomf. Gloss. Perss. 408. 4 Berish. rad. f. 28. 2. 


NOTES. 87 


correlate of &vevAoy., v. 25. This efficacy of the Sent One procuring salva- 
tion through His redeeming work is continuous. —év 70 aroorpégerv| in the 
turning away, i.e. when ye turn from your iniquities (see on Rom. i. 29), 
consequently denoting that by which the eiAoyeiv must be accompanied on 
the part of the recipients (comp. iv. 30) — the moral relation which must 
necessarily be thereby brought about. We may add, that here the intran- 
sitive meaning of amvorp£oeıw,' and not the transitive, which Piscator, Cal- 
vin, Hammond, Wetstein, Bengel, Morus, Heinrichs adopt (when He turns 
away), is required by the summons contained in ver. 19,— The issue to 
which vv. 25 and 26 were meant to induce the hearers—namely, that they 
should now believingly apprehend and appropriate the Messianic salvation 
announced beforehand to them by God and assured by covenant, and in- 
deed actually in the mission of the Messiah offered to them first before all 
others—was already expressed sufficiently in ver. 19, and is now again at 
the close in ver. 26, and that with a sufficiently successful result (iv. 4) ; 
and therefore the hypothesis that the discourse was interrupted while still 
unfinished by the arrival of the priests, etc. (iv. 1), is unnecessary. 


Notes BY AMERICAN Eprror. 


(m) Parousia. V. 20. 


V. 20, Rev. Version, “Andthat he may send the Christ who hath been ap- 
pointed for you, even Jesus,” rooreyeiıpıouevov—the reading preferred, signi- 
fies taken in hand, determined, appointed. Jesus was their appointed, pre- 
destined Messiah. 

‘Nearly all critics understand this passage as referring to the return of 
Christ at the end of the world. The apostle enforces his exhortation to repent, 
by an appeal to the final coming of Christ, not because he would represent it 
as near in point of time, but because that event was always near to the feelings 
and consciousness of the first believers. It was the great consummation on 
which the strongest desires of their souls were fixed, to which their thoughts 
and hopes were habitually turned. They lived with reference to this event. 
They labored to be prepared for it (2 Pet. iii. 12). The apostles, as well as the 
first Christians in general, comprehended the grandeur of that occasion. It 
filled their circle of view, stood forth to their contemplations as the point of 
culminating interest in their own and the world’s history ; threw into com- 
parative insignificance the present time, death, all intermediate events, and 
made them feel that the manifestation of Christ, with its consequences of inde- 
scribable moment to all true believers, was the grand object they were to keep 
in view as the end of their toils, the commencement and perfection of their 
glorious immortality.” 

“Tf modern Christians sympathized more fully with the sacred writers 
on this subject, it would bring both their conduct and their style of religious 
instruction into nearer correspondence with the lives and teaching of the 
primitive examples of our faith.’’ (Hackett.) 


1So only here in the N. T. ; but see Xen. 5, xvii. 21; Bar. ii. 33; Sauppe, ad Xen. de re 
Hist, iii. 4. 12 ; Gen. xviii. 23, al.’ Ecclus. viii. eg. 12. 13; Krüger, § lii. 2. 5. 


88 NOTES. 


“The reference is evidently to an objective and not a subjective ad- 
vent. It is a matter of dispute in what manner the apostles regarded 
the second coming of Christ. In all probability they were so engrossed 
with it that they lost sight of intermediate events; it was the object 
of their earnest desire; the period was indeed concealed from them, 
but they continually looked forward to it; they expected it, as that which 
might occur at any moment. Afterwards, as revelation disclosed itself, and 
the course of Providence was developed, they did not expect it to oceur in 
their days. Paul especially seems to have regarded it as an event in the re- 
mote future, and cautions his converts not to be shaken in mind or to be 
troubled, as if the day of Christ was at hand (2 Thess. ii. 2). The precise 
period of the advent, we are expressly informed by our Lord, formed no part 
of divine revelation ; it was designedly left in uncertainty by God.’’ ( Gloag.) 


CRITICAL REMARKS, 89 


CHAPTER IV. 


VER. 2. r)v éx vexpov] D, min. and some vss. and Fathers have tov vexpov. 
Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Bornem. An alteration in accordance 
with the current avdoraoıc THv vexpov. — Ver. 5. etc] A B D E, min. Chrys. have 
&v, which Griesb. has recommended, and Lachm. Tisch. Born. adopted. A 
correction, as the reference of eic was not obvious, and it was taken for év ; 
hence also eic 'Iepovg. (regarded as quite superfluous) is entirely omitted in the 
Syr. —Ver. 6. Lachm. has simple nominatives, «ai "Avvag . . . ’AAéavdpoc, in 
accordance no doubt with A B D & ; but erroneously, for the very reason that 
this reading was evidently connected with the reading ovvnyÖncav, ver. 5, still 
preserved in D ; Born. has consistently followed the whole form of the text in 
D as to vv. 5, 6 (also the name ’Iwovadar instead of ’Iwdvvyc). — Ver. 7. &v To uEow 
with the article is to be defended after Elz., with Lachm., on preponderating 
evidence (A B &).—Ver. 8. tov ’IopanA] is wanting in A BR, Vulg. Copt. 
Sahid. Aeth. Cyr. Fulg., and deleted by Lachm. But, as it was quite obvious 
of itself, it was more readily passed over than added. — Ver. 11. oixodöuwv] so, 
correctly, Lachm. and Tisch., according to important authorities. The usual 
oikodouovvrwv is from Matt. xxi. 42; comp. LXX. Ps. exviii. 22. — Ver. 12. oöre] 
A BX, min. Did. Theodoret. Bas. have oidé, which is recommended by Griesb. 
and adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. And rightly, as in Luke xx. 36, xii. 26. 
Born., following D, has merely ov. —Ver. 16. sovjcouev] A E NS, min. have 
roujowuev. Recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. But the de- 
liberative subjunctive appeared more in keeping with the sense. Comp. on ii. 
37. — Ver. 17. üreıAnowusda] D, min. have azeAqjoduefa. So Born. But the 
future was introduced in order that it might correspond to the question 
ri roınoouev. The preceding areır7 is wanting in A B D N, min. most vss. and 
some Fathers ; deleted by Lachm. and Born. It might very easily be omitted 
by an oversight of the transcriber. — Ver. 18. After wapyyy., Elz. Scholz. Born. 
have auroic. A common, but here weakly attested insertion. — Ver. 24. 6 Oeöc] 
is wanting in A B &, Copt. Vulg. Ath. Did. Ambr. Hilar. Aug. Deleted by 
Lachm. and Tisch. But as it might be dispensed with so far as the sense was 
concerned, how easily might a transcriber pass over from the first to the . 
second 6! On the other hand, there is no reason why it should have been 
inserted. — Ver. 25. 6 did oröwar. A, raiddc¢ cov einwv] There are very many 
variations,'! among which 6 roö warpoc nuov dua mvevuaroc üyiov oröuaroc A. maudöc 
cov einov has the greatest attestation (AB ES, min.), and is adopted by 
Lachm., who, however, considers veizaroc as spurious (Praef. p. VII... An 
aggregation of various amplifying glosses ; see Fritzsche, de conform. Lachm. p. 
55. — Ver. 27. év 77 möAeı ravrn] is wanting in Elz., but has decisive attestation. 
Rejected by Mill and Whitby as a gloss, but already received by Bengel. ‘The 


1 Sce besides Tisch., especially Born. in loe., who reads after D: 0 (D: 6s) &a mv. ay., dua Tod 
oro. AaAjoas Aavid, mauöos cov. 


90 CHAP. Iv., 1-5. 


omission may be explained from the circumstance, that in the passage of the 
Psalm no locality is indicated. — Ver. 36. 'Iwo7j¢] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read 
’Ioong, according to ABD E N, min. Chrys, Epiph. and several vss. A mechan- 
ical alteration, in conformity with i. 23.—%7é] Lachm. and Tisch. read azé, 
according to A BE 8, min. Theophyl. Rightly ; nö appeared to be neces- 


sary. 


Vv. 1, 2. ’Exéorycav| stood there beside them. The sudden appearance is 
implied in the context (AaAovvr. dé aur., and see ver. 3). See on Luke ii. 9, 
xx. 1. —oi iepeic] The article signifies those priests who were then serving 
as a guard at the temple. — 6 otparyyo¢ Tov iepov] the leacer on duty of the 
Levitical temple-guard (of the iepeic), and himself a priest ; different from 
the rpoorärne row iepov.'—As the concourse of people occurred in the temple- 
court, it was the business of the temple-guard officiaily to interfere. 
Therefore the opinion of Lightfoot, Erasmus Schmid, and Hammond, that 
the orparmyöc tov iep. is here the commander of the Roman garrison of the 
castle of Antonia, is to be rejected. — kai of Zaddovraioı] see on Matt. iii. 7 
(8). The Sadducees present in the temple-court had heard the speech of 
Peter, chap. iji., at least to ver. 15 (see ver. 2), had then most probably 
instigated the interference of the guard, and hence appear now taking part, 
in the arrest of the apostles. — dıarovonuevor . . . vexp@v| refers to oi Zaddow. 
For these denied the resurrection of the dead, Matt. xxii. 23. ‘‘Sadducaei 
negant dicuntque : deficit nubes atque abit ; sic descendens in sepulcrum 
non redit,’? Tanchum, f. iii. 1. dıamovovu. here and in xvi. 18 may be 
explained either according to classical usage : who were active in their exer- 
tions, exerted their energies, my former interpretation, or according to the 
LXX.,? who were grieved, afflicted, the usual view, following the Vulgate 
and Luther. The latter meaning is most natural in the connection, is sufli- 
ciently justified in later usage* by those passages, and therefore is to be 
preferred. Sorrow and pain come upon them, because Peter and John 
taught the people, and in doing so announced, etc. That was offensive to 
their principles, and so annoyed them. — év ro "Inoov] in the person of Jesus, 
i.e. in the case of His personal example. For in the resurrection of Jesus 
the avdoracie éx vexp. in general—although the latter is not expressly brought 
forward by Peter—was already inferentially maintained, since the possi- 
bility of it and even an actual instance were therein exhibited (1 Cor. xv. 
12). — We may add that, as the apostles made the testifying of the Zisen 
One the foundation of their preaching, the emergence of the Sadducees is 
historically so natural and readily conceivable (comp. v. 17), that Baur’s 
opinion, as to an @ priori combination having without historical ground 
attributed this röle to them, can only appear frivolous and uncritical, 





12 Mace. iii. 4 (see Grimm én loc.); comp. moveigdaı in this sense, whether the pain felt 
Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 12.6; Antt. xx. 6. 2. may be bodily or mental. See Krügeron Thuc. 


See also on Luke xxii. 4. ii. 51. 4; Lobeck, ad Aj. p. 396; Duncan, 
2 Ecclus. x.9; Aq. Gen. vi.6; 1 Sam. xx. Lex. Hom. ed. Rost, p. 969. Accordingly, in 
30 (Hesychius, dtarovndeıs‘ Aummeais). the above passages dtaroveioda. is the strength- 


3 The classical writers use the simple verb ened moveioda. in this sense. 


ARREST OF PETER AND JOHN. 91 


however zealously Zeller has sought to amplify and establish it. See in 
opposition to it, Lechler, Apost. Zeit. p. 326 ff. 

Ver. 3. Eis rapnow] into custody, i.e. into prison.'— éorépa] as they had 
gone to the temple at the ninth hour, and so at the beginning of the first 
evening (iii. 1), the second evening, which commenced at the twelfth hour, 
had probably already begun. See on Matt. xiv. 15. 

Ver. 4, As a contrast to this treatment of the apostles (dé), Luke notices 
the great increase of the church, which was effected by the‘address of the 
apostle. The number of believers had before this been above three thou- 
sand (ii. 41, 47); by the present increase the nwmber of men, the women, there- 
fore, being not even included—on account of the already so considerable 
multitude of believers, came to be about five thousand. The supposition of 
Olshausen, ‘‘ that at first, perhaps, only men had jeined the church,”? is ar- 
bitrary, and contrary to i. 14. At variance with the text, and in opposition 
to v. 14, de Wette makes women to be included. 

Ver. 5. ’Eyévero . . . owaydnvar] But it came to pass that, ete.” — abrir] 
refers not to the believers, but, as is presumed to be obvious of itself, to 
the Jews, whose people, priests, ete., were named above, ver. 1, and to 
whom those who had become believers belonged.* — rode apyorr. x. mpeoß. 
k. ypauu.] the Sanhedrists and elders and scribes. A full meeting of the San- 
hedrim was arranged, at which in particular the members belonging to the 
classes of representatives of the people and scribes were not absent. Comp. 
on Matt. ii. 4. -— eic 'IspovoaAyu] not as if they had their official residence 
elsewhere as Zeller suggests, in the interest of proving the narrative un- 
historical ; but certainly many were at this most beautiful period of sum- 
mer soon after Pentecost, at their country residences. So, correctly, Beza, 
‘arcessitis videlicet qui urbe aberant ut sollennis esset hic conventus,’?— 
but only by way of suggestion, Bengel, Winer, and others. Most of the 
older commentators, and Kuinoel, erroneously assume that eic stands for &v, 
in which case, moreover, a quite superfluous remark would be the result. 
— kai] also, in order to mention these specially. —*Avvav rdv apyep.] (0). As 
at this time not Annas, but his son-in-law Caiaphas, was the ruling high priest, 
an erroneous statement must be acknowledged here, as in Luke iii. 2, which 
may be explained from the continuing great influence of Annas.* Baumgar- 
ten still, p. 88,° contents himself with justifying the expression from the age 
and influence of Annas—a view which could not occur to any reader, and 
least of all to Theophilus, after Luke iii. 2. — Nothing further is known of 
John and Alexander, who, in consequence of their connection with Caiaphas 
and with the following «ai dco «.7.2., are to be regarded as members of the 
hierarchy related to Annas. Conjectures concerning the former, that he is 
identical with the Jochanan Ben Zaccai celebrated in the Talmud, may be 


1 Comp. Thuc. vii. 86.1; Acts v. 18. 4 See the particulars, as well as the unsatis- 

2 Comp. ix. 3; Luke iii. 21, xvi. 22. So also factory shifts which have been resorted to, 
in classical writers (Hes. 7’heog. 639 ;: Xen. on Luke iii. 2. Comp. Zeller, p. 127. 
Cyr. vi. 3. 11). See Sturz, Lex. Xen. I. p. 5 Comp. also Lange, Apostol. Zeitult. I. p. 
587. 96, and II. p. 55. 

3 Comp. Winer, p. 138 (E. T. 183). 


92 CHUA Pash Vs 0, Lees 


seen in Lightfoot in loc.; and concerning the latter, that he was the brother 
of Philo, in Mangey,’ — &x yévouc apyepat.| of the high-priestly family. Be- 
sides Caiaphas, John, and Alexander, all the other relatives of the high 
priest were brought into the assembly,—a proceeding indicative of the 
special importance which was ascribed to the pronouncing judgment on the 
dangerous prisoners. 

Ver. 7. The apostles were placed in the midst (év rö pécw, comp. Matt. 
xiv. 6; John viii. 3), so that they might be seen by all; and, for the pur- 
pose of ascertaining the state of matters which had occasioned the popular 
tumult of yesterday, the question is first of all submitted to them for their 
own explanation : By what kind of power,” which was at your command, or 
by what kind of name, which ye have pronounced, have ye done this ?—the cure 
which, they were aware, was the occasion of the discussion. Erroneously, 
Morus, Rosenmüller, and Olshausen have referred rovro to the public teach- 
ing. For the judicial examination had to begin at the actual commence- 
ment of the whole occurrence ; and so Peter correctly understood this 
rovro, as vv. 9, 10 prove. — év roiw övöuarı] The Sanhedrim certainly knew 
that the apostles had performed the cure &v övöuarı "I. Xpiorov (iii. 6), and 
they intended to found on the confession of this point partly the impeach- 
ment of heresy and blasphemy—as the Jewish exorcists were accustomed to 
use names of an entirely different kind in their formulae, namely, those of 
the holy patriarchs, or of the wise Solomon, or of God Himself*—and 
partly the charge of effort at rebellion, which might easily be based on the 
acknowledgment of the crucified insurgent as the Messiah. — iveic] you 
people ! with depreciating emphasis at the close. 

Vv. 8-10. TAgodeic mvebu. ayiov] quite specially, namely, for the present 
defence. Comp. xiii. 9. ‘*Ut praesens quodque tempus poscit, sic Deus 
organa sua movet,’’ Bengel. See Luke xii. 11 f. — ei] in the sense of ézei,4 
is here chosen not without rhetorical art. For Peter at once places the 
nature of the deed, which was denoted by rovro, in its true light, in which 
it certainly did not appear to be a suitable subject of judicial inquiry, 
which presupposes a misdeed. If we (nueic has the emphasis of surprise) 
are this day examined in respect of a good deed done to an infirm man (as to 
the means, namely), whereby he has been delivered. —In én’ evepyecia is con- 
tained an equally delicate and pointed indication of the unrighteousness of 
the inquisitorial proceeding, — We are decidedly led to interpret év ri as 
neuter (whereby, comp. Matt. v. 13), by the question of the Sanhedrim, ver. 
7, in which no person is named, as well as by the answer of Peter: &v rö 
dvouate ’I. X. «.r.A., ver. 10, which is to be explained by the uttering the 
name of Jesus Christ, but not to be taken as equivalent to év ’Ijcov Xpioro. 
Hence the explanation, per quem, eujus ope (Kuinoel, Heinrichs), is to be 
rejected ; but the emphatic &v roitw (ver. 10) is nevertheless to be taken, 


1 Praef.ad Phil. ; and Pearson, Lect. p. 51; 3 See Van Dalen, de divinat. Idol. V. T. p. 
Krebs, Odss. p. 176; Sepp, Gesch. d. Ap. p. 5, 520. ; 
ed. 2. 4Bornem. ad. Xen. Symp. 4. 3, p. 101; 
2 Observe the qualitative interrogative pro- Meissig, Conject. in Aristoph. I. p. 113; Dis- 
nouns. sen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 195. 


THEIR DEFENCE. 93 


with Erasmus, as masculine, so that after the twice-repeated bv x.7.2. there 
comes in instead of the övoua ’I. X., as the solemnity of the discourse in- 
creases (‘‘ verba ut libera, ita plena gravitatis,’’ Grotius), the concrete Person 
(on this one it depends, that, etc.), of whom thereupon with oiroc, ver. 11, 
further statements are made. — öv 6 Oeög jyeipev éx verp.] a rhetorical asyn- 
deton, strongly bringing out the contrast without pév . . . 6é.1— obroc 
mapéornkev x.7.2.| Thus the man himself who had been cured was called into 
‘the Sanhedrim to be confronted with the apostles, and was present ; in 
which case those assembled certainly could not at all reckon beforehand 
that the sight of the man, along with the rappnoia of the apostles (ver. 13), 
would subsequently, ver. 14, frustrate their whole design. This quiet 
power of the man’s immediate presence operated instantaneously ; therefore 
the question, how they could have summoned the man whose very presence 
must have refuted their accusation (Zeller, comp. Baur), contains an argu- 
mentum ex eventu which forms no proper ground for doubting the historical 
character of the narrative. 

Ver. 11. Oiroc] referred to Jesus, the more remote subject, which, however, 
was most vividly present to the conception of the speaker.” — 6 2iGoc K.7.2.] aremi- 
niscence of the well-known saying in Ps. exviii. 22, in immediate, bold 
application to the Sanhedrists (i ivav), the builders of the theocracy, that 
have rejected Jesus, who yet by His resurrection and glorification has 
become the corner-stone, the bearer and upholder of the theocracy, 7.e. 
that which constitutes its entire nature, subsistence, and working.’ 

Ver. 12. To the foregoing figurative assurance, that Jesus is the Messiah, 
Peter now annexes the solemn declaration that no other is so, and that with- 
out figure. — And there is not in another the salvation, i.e. nar’ éoxhv the 
Messianic deliverance (ii. 21). Comp. v. 31, xv. 11. This mode of taking 
7 owrnpla is imperatively demanded, both by the absolute position of the 
word with the force of the article, and by the connection with the preced- 
ing, wherein Jesus was designated as Messiah, as well as by the completely 
parallel second member of the verse. Therefore Michaelis, Bolten, and 
Hildebrand err in holding that it is to be understood of the cure of a man 
so infirm. Nor is the idea of deliverance from diseases generally to be at 
all blended with that of the Messianic salvation (in opposition to Kypke, 
Moldenhauer, Heinrichs), as Peter had already, at ver. 11, quite departed 
from the theme of the infirm man’s cure, and passed over to the assertion 
of the Messianic character of Jesus guite generally, without retaining any 
special reference to bodily deliverance. — év d/Aw ovdevi] no other is the 
ground, on which salvation is causally dependent.* — yap] annexes a more 
precise explanation, which is meant to serve as a proof of the preceding. 
For also there is no other name under the heaven given among men, in which 
we must obtain salvation. —ovdé yap (see the critical remarks) : for also not. 


1 See Dissen, Zire. II. ad Pind. p. 275. 4 Soph. Aj. 515: év coi mac’ Eywye awlonat. 
2 Winer, p. 148 (E. T. 195). Eur. Alc. 279: év coi Eonev Kat Cyv Kat my. 
3 Moreover, see on Matt. xxi. 42, and comp. Herod. viii. 118: év Univ Eoıkev Enol eivar 


1 Pet. ii. 4 ff. ; also on 1 Cor. iii. 11; Eph. cwrnpin. 
ii. 20. 


94 CHAP. Iv., 13-22. 


The reading oöre yap would not signify namque non,’ but would indicate 
that a further clause corresponding to the 7é was meant to follow it up,’ 
which, however, does not suit here, where the address is brought to a 
weighty close. The use generally doubtful, at least with prose writers, of 
ovk . . . ovre instead of vite . . . obre,* is here excluded by yap, which 
makes the notion of neither —nor inapplicable. — érepov] a name different 
from that name. On the other hand previously : év GAdw ovd., in no one but 
in Him. Comp. on Gal. i. 7. —7d dedon. Ev avdp.] which is granted by God 
— given for good — among men, in human society. The view adopted by 
Wolf and Kuinoel, that év avdp. stands for the simple dative, is erroneous.* 
— avdperorc] in this generic reference did not require the article.° id 7. 
ovpav., Which might in itself be dispensed with, has solemn emphasis. 
Comp. ii. 5.—év 0] as formerly év GAA». The name is to be conceived as 
the contents of the believing confession, Fides ¢mplicita, in opposition 
to the Catholics, cannot here be meant ; ili. 19, 26. — dei] namely, accord- 
ing to God’s unalterable destination. 

Vv. 13-15. Oswpoövrec] ‘‘Inest notio contemplandi cum attentione aut 
admiratione.’’® — xai karalaßöuevor]) and when they had perceived,’ when they 
had become aware. They perceived this during the address of Peter, which 
was destitute of all rabbinical learning and showed to them one ypaundrwv 
aypäunaroı” denotes here the want of rabbinic culture. ’Idıara: is 
the same : Zaymen, who are strangers to theological learning.” The double 
designation is intended to express the idea very fully; avspwro: has in it, 
moreover, something disparaging : unlearned men.“ On ididryc, which, 
according to the contrast implied in the connection, may denote either a 
private man, cr a plebeian, or an unlearned person, or a common soldier, 
or one inexperienced in gymnastic exercises, one not a poet, not a physi- 
cian, and other forms of contrast to a definite professional knowledge, see 
Valcken. in loc.; Hemsterhuis, ad Lucian. Necyom. p. 484; Ruhnken, ad 
Long. p. 410. Here the element of contrast is contained in aypauuaroı : 
hence the general meaning plebeians’ is to be rejected. They were puwpoi 
tov Kéonov, 1 Cor. i. 27. Comp. John vii. 15. — éreyivwoxdy Te avroic, ore 
x.7.A.] and recognised them, namely, that they were, at an earlier period, 
with Jesus. Their astonishment sharpened now their recollection; and 
therefore Baur and Zeller have taken objection to this remark without 
sufficient psychological reason.  ézeyivwox. is incorrectly taken (even by 
Kuinoel) as the pluperfect.'* The two imperfects, é0aiuag. and Ereyivwor., 
are, as relative tenses, here entirely in place. — 761 dé avdpwr.] emphatically 
put first. — cvvéBadov] they conferred among themselves." 


> 8 
ATELPOV. 


1 So Hermann, Opuse. III. p. 158. 
2 Klotz, ad Devar. p. 716 ; Kühner, ad Xen. 


Mem. i. 2. 31; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 444 f. 


3 Baeumlein, Parfik. p. 222. 

4 Winer, p. 204 (E. T'. 273). 

5 See Ast, Lex. Plat. I. p. 177 f.; Kühner, 
ad Xen. Mem.i. 4. 143; Stallb. ad Plat. Crit. 
p.51 A; Prot. p. 355 A. 

6 Tittmann, Synon. N. T. p. 121. 

7x. 34; Eph. iii. 18; Plat. Phaedr. p. 250 


D; Polyb. viii. 4. 6; Dion. Hal. ii. 66. 
8 Plat. Apol. p. 26 D. 
9 Xen. Mem. iv. 2. 20; Plat. Crit. p. 109 D. 
10 See Hartmann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1834, 


Tp. 19st. 
11 Comp. Lys. acc. Nicom. 28, and Bremi in 
loc. [ten. 


12 Kuinoel and Olshausen, comp. Baumgar- 
13 See Winer, p. 253 (E. T. 337). 
14 Comp, xvii. 18; Plut. Mor. p. 222 C. 


THEIR RELEASE. 95 


Ver. 16. The positive thought of the question is: We shall be able to dö 
nothing to these men. What follows contains the reason: for that a notable 
miracle, a definite proof of divine co-operation, has happened through them, 
is evident to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and we are not in a position to 
deny it. — To the pév corresponds 4/2’, ver. 17; to the yrwordy is opposed 
the mere dofacrév.' 

Vy. 17, 18. In order, however, that it be not further brought out among thé 
people, i.e. spread by communication hither and thither among the people, 
even beyond Jerusalem. The subject is rö onueiov, not dıdayy ; but the 
former is conceived of and dreaded as promoting the latter. 
magis, i.e. here ulterius.* — Observe that the confession of ver. 16, made in 
the bosom of the council, in confidential deliberation, and without the 
presence of a third party, is therefore by no means ‘inconceivable’? (in 
opposition to Zeller). The discussion in the council itself may have been 
brought about in various ways, if not even by secret friends of Jesus in the 
Sanhedrim (Neander, Lange). —azeAq arecAno.| emphatically threaten.* — 
Zadcw] is quite general, to speak ; for it corresponds to the two ideas, 
oleyysodaı * and diddoxew, ver. 18.—éxi 76 dvdu. rovrwo] so that the name 
uttered is the basis on which the Aadeiv rests. Comp. on Luke xxiv. 47. 
They do not now name the name contemptuously, but do so only in stating 
the decision, ver. 18. — The article before the infinitive brings into stronger 
Concerning jj in such a case, see Baeumlein, 


émt mAEIoV, 


prominence the object.® 
Partik. p. 296 f. 

Vv. 19-22. ’Evér. r. Ocoi] coram Deo, God as Judge being conceived as 
present : ‘‘multa mundus pro justis habet, quae coram Deo non sunt justa,”’ 
Bengel. We may add, that the maxim here expressed, founded on Matt. xxii. 
21, takes for granted two things as certain; on the one hand, that some- 
thing is really commanded by God ; and, on the other hand, that a demand 
of the rulers does really cancel the command of God, and is consequently im- 
moral; in which case the rulers actually and wilfully abandon their status as 
organs of divine ordination, and even take up a position antagonistic to God. 
Only on the assumption of this twofold certainty could that principle lead 
Christianity, without the reproach of revolution, to victory over the world 
in opposition to the will of the Jewish and heathen rulers.* For analogous ex- 
pressions from the Greek’? and Latin writers and Rabbins, see Wetstein. The 
paddov # is : rather (potius, Vulgate) than, i.e. instead of listening to God, 
rather to listen to you.’ The meaning of axovev is similar to reıdapyeiv, ver. 


1 Plat. Pol. v. p. 479 D, vi. p. 510 A. 5 Bernhardy, p. 356; Winer, p. 303 (E. T. 


2 See xx. 9, xxiv.4; 2 Tim. il. 16, ili. 9; Plat. 
Phaedr. p. 261 B; Gorg. p. 453 A; and Stallb. 
an loc. ; Phaed. p. 93 B; Xen. de vect. 4. 3. 
Comp. em waddov, Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 48. 

* Comp. Luke xxii. 15; Lobeck, Paral. p. 
523 ff. ; Winer, p. 434 (E. T. 584). 

40On un beyyerdaı, not to become audible, 
Erasmus correctly remarks : “ Plus est quam 
ne loquerentur ; q. a. ne hiscerent aut ullam 
vacem ederent.” Comp. Castalio. See on 
b0eyyer@at, Dorvill. ad Charit. p. 409. 


406). 

° Comp. Wuttke, Sittenl. § 310. Observe 
withal, that it is not the magisterial command 
itself and per se that is divine, but the com- 
mand for its observance is a divine one, 
which therefore cannot be connected with im- 
morality without doing away with its very 
idea as divine. 

7 Plat. Apol. p. 29D; Arrian. Zpiet. i. 20. 

8 Inconsistently the Vulg. has, at v. 29, 
magis. See Bacuml. Partık. p. 136. 


96 CHAP. IV., 23-28. 


29. — yap] Ver. 20 specifies the reason, the motive for the summons: kpivarein 
ver. 19. For to us it is morally, in the consciousness of the divine will, impossi- 
ble not to speak,! i.e. (P) we must speak what we saw and heard —namely, 
the deeds and words of Jesus, of which we were eye-witnesses and ear- 
witnesses. — „ueic] we on our part. — rpooareınoausvoı) after they had still 
more threatened them, namely, than already in the prohibition of ver. 18, in 
which, after ver. 17, the threatening was obviously implied.* — undev 
evpickovtec TO THC K.T.2.] because they found nothing, namely how they were to 
punish them. The article before whole sentences to which the attention is 
to be specially directed.* — röc is not, with Kuinoel and others, to be ex- 
plained gua specie quo praetextu ; the Sanhedrim, in fact, did not know how to 
invent any kind of punishment, which might be ventured upon without stir- 
ring up the:people. Therefore dia rov Aaov, on account of the people, .e. in 
consideration of them, is not to be referred, as usually, to ariAvcav avrouc, 
but to wydév eipickovtec K.T.2. — Erov yap x.r.A.] So much the greater must the 
miracle of healing have appeared to the unprejudiced people, and so much 
the more striking and worthy of praise the working of God in it. rAsıövwv 
tecoapax. Comp. Matt. xxvi. 53.4 

Vv. 23, 24. poe rovc idiove] to those belonging to them, i.e. to their fellow- 
apostles. This explanation (Syr. Beza) is verified partly by ver. 31, where 
it is said of all, that they proclaimed the doctrine of God ; partly by ver. 
32, where the multitude of believers are contrasted with these. Hence 
neither are we to understand, with Kuinoel, Baumgarten, and others, the 
Christian church in general, nor, with Olshausen, the church in the house 
of the apostles, or an assembly as in xii. 12.° — dvo8vpaddv jpav] Thus all 
with one accord spoke aloud the following prayer; and not possibly Peter 
alone. The attempts to explain this away (Kuinoel, comp. Bengel: that 
the rest accompanied the speaker with a subdued voice; de Wette: that 
they spoke after him mentally ; Olshausen: either that one prayed in the 
name of all, or that in these words is presented the collective feeling of all) 
are at variance with the clear text.° It is therefore to be assumed (comp. 
also Hildebrand) that in vv. 24-30 there is already a stated prayer (Q) of the 
apostolic church at Jerusalem, which under the fresh impression of the last. 
events of the life of Jesus, and under the mighty influence of the Spirit 
received by them, had shaped and moulded itself naturally and as if invol- 
untarily, according to the exigency which engrossed their hearts; and 
which at this time, because its contents presented to the pious feeling of 
the suppliants a most appropriate application to what had just happened, 
the assembled apostles joined in with united inspiration, and uttered aloud. 
With this view the contents of the prayer quite accord, as it expresses the 
memories of that time (ver. 25 ff.) and the exigencies (vv. 29, 30) of the 


1 Winer, p. 464 (E. T. 624). 5 Van Hengel, Gave d. talen, p. 68. 

2 Comp. Ecclus. xiii. 3, ed. Compl. ; Dem. ® This holds also in opposition to Baumgar- 
544, 26; Zosim. i. 70. ten’s view, that the whole assembly sang 

3 Comp. Kühner, II. p. 138; Mark ix. 23; together the second Psalm, and then Peter 
Luke i. 62; Acts xxii. 30. made an application of it to the present cir- 


4 Plat. Apol. p. 17 D, and Stallb. in loc. ; cum:tances in the words here given. 
Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 410 f. 


A PRAYER-MEETING. 97 


threatened church in general with energetic precision, but yet takes no 
special notice of what had just happened to Peter and John. — The address 
continues to the end of ver. 26. Others! supply ei after ci, or before 6... 
einov (Bengel), but less in keeping with the inspired fervour of the prayer. 
The designation of God by d£orora and 6 roujoag k.r.}., Serves as a back- 
ground to the triumphant thought of the necessary unsuccessfulness of hu- 
man opposition. Comp. Neh. ix. 6; Rev. xiv. 7, al. 

Vv. 25, 26. Ps. ii. 1, 2, exactly according to the LXX. The Psalm it- 
self, according to its historical meaning, treats of the king, most probably 
of Solomon, mounting the throne ; but this theocratic king is a type of the 
ideal of the Israelitish kingdom, 7.e. of the Messiah, present to the prophetic 
eye. The Psalm is not by David (see Ewald and Hupfeld) ; but those who 
are praying follow the general assumption that the Psalms, of which no 
other is mentioned as author, proceed from him. —- From the standpoint of 
the antitypical fulfilment in Christ they understoood (see ver. 27) the words 
of the Psalm thus : Wherefore raged, against Jesus, Gentiles, the Romans, 
and tribes, of Israel, imagined a vain thing, in which they could not succeed, 
namely, the destruction of Jesus? There arose, against Him, the kings of 
the earth, and the rulers, the former represented by Herod, and the latter by 
Pilate, assembled themselves, namely with the é3vecw and Aaoic (see ver. 27), 
against Jehovah, who had sent Jesus, and against His anointed. — gpvacow| 
primarily, to snort ; then, generally, ferocio ; used in ancient Greek only in 
the middle.? 

Vv. 27, 28. For in truth there assembled, etc. This yap confirms the con- 
tents of the divine utterance quoted from that by which it had been his- 
torically fulfilled. — &r' aAndeiac] according to truth? really. — éxi rov dywv 
maida cov Ino bv éxpic.] against Thy holy servant, ete. Explanation of the 
above kara tov Xpiorov aitov. The (ideal) anointing of Jesus, i.e. His conse- 
cration on the part of God to be the Messianic king, took place, according 
to Luke, at His baptism,* by means of the Spirit, which came upon Him 
while the voice of God declared Him the Messiah. The consecration 
of Christ is otherwise conceived of in John (öv 6 raryp jyiace ; see on 
John x. 36). —‘Hpédyc] Luke xxiii. 11. —oiv &dveor x Aaoic “Iop.] with 
Gentiles and Israel’s peoples. The plural Aaoic does not stand for the 
singular, but is put on account of ver. 25, and is to be referred either, 
with Calvin and others, to the different nationalities (comp. ii. 5) from 
which the Jews—in great measure from foreign countries—were assembled 
at the Passover against Jesus; or, with Grotius and others, to the twelve 
tribes, which latter opinion is to be preferred, in accordance with such 
passages as Gen. xxviii. 3, xxxv. 5, xlviii. 4. The priesthood not spe- 
cially named is included in the Aaoic ’Iop. — rougoa] contains the design of 
the cvrfySyoav. This design of their coming together was “to kill Jesus ;”’ 
but the matter is viewed according to the decree of God overruling it: ‘to 
do what God has predetermined.’? — 4 xeip cov) symbolizes in the lofty strain 


1 Vulgate, Beza, Castalio, Calvin, de Wette, 3 Bernhardy, p. 248. Comp. x. 34; Luke iv. 
and many. 25: Dem. 538; Polyb. i. 84. 6. 
2 See Wesseling, ad Diod. iv. 74. 4 Acts x. 38; Luke iii. 21, 22. 


98 CHAP. IV., 29-35. 


of the discourse the disposing power of God.‘ A zeugma is contained in 
xpodpice, inasmuch as the notion of the verb does not stand in logical re- 
lation to the literal meaning of 7 xeip cov—with which some such word as 
rponroiuace Would have been in accord—but only to the attribute of God 
thereby symbolized. — The death of the Lord was not the accidental work of 
hostile caprice, but the necessary result of the divine predetermination, to 
which divine dei, the personally free action of man had to serve as an in- 
strument.? Ov« abroi ioyvoav, GAG od Ei 6 TO Mav EriTpépag Kai eig Tépac ayayor, 
6 evumxavoc Kai coddc’ ovvjAdov wiv yap Exeivor OG EX po . . ., Emoiovv JE a OD 
&ßobAov, Oecumenius. Beza aptly says: roujoa refers not to the consilia 
et voluntates Herodis, ete., but to the eventus consiliorum.* 

Vv. 29, 30. Kai raviv] and now, as concerns the present state of things. 
In the N. T. only in the Book of Acts ;* often in classical authors, — &gıde® 
éme tT. area. avr. : direct thine attention to their threatenings, that they pass not 
into reality. On égopav in the sense of governing care, see Schaef. App. ad 
Dem. V. p. 31. Comp. Isa. xxxvii. 17. avrov, according to the original 
meaning of the prayer (see on ver. 24), refers to the "Hpodyc . . . "IopanA. 
named in ver. 27, from whom the followers of Jesus, after His ascension, 
feared continued persecution. But the apostles then praying, when they 
uttered the prayer in reference to what had just occurred, gave to it in 
their conception of it a reference to the threatenings uttered against Peter 
and John in the Sanhedrim. — roic dotActe cov] i.e. us apostles. They are 
the servants of God, who exccute His will in the publication of the gospel. 
But the waic Ocod kar’ &£oyyv is Christ. Comp. on ili. 13.°— uera mappno. 
mac.| with all possible freedom.” —év To tHv yeipa cov Exreiv. K.T.A.] L.e. whilst 
Thou (for the confirmation of their free-spoken preaching ; comp. xiv. 3; 
Mark xvi. 20) causest Thy power to be active for (cic, of the aim) healing, and 
that signs and wonders be done through the name (through its utterance), ete. 
—kai o. k. T. yiveoSa:] is infinitive of the aim, and so parallel to eic iacıy, 
attaching the general to the particular ; not, however, dependent on eic, 
but standing by itself. To supply év ro again after kai (Beza, Bengel) 
would unnecessarily disturb the simple concatenation of the discourse, and 
therefore also the clause is not to be connected with döc. 

Ver. 31. "Eoateidy 6 téx0c¢] This is not to be conceived of as an accidental 
earthquake, but as an extraordinary shaking of the place directly effected by 
God, a onueiov’—analogous to what happened at Pentecost—of the filling 
with the rveoua, which immediately ensued. This filling once more with 
the Spirit (comp. ver. 8) was the actual granting of the prayer dd¢ . . . Aöyov 
cov, ver. 29; for the immediate consequence was : éAdAovv T. Ady. T. Ocov uerä 
mappnoiac, namely in Jerusalem, before the Jews, so that the threatenings 


1 Comp. ver. 30, vii. 50, xiii. 11; 1 Pet. v. 6; 6 For examples of öos in prayers, see Elsner, 
Herod. viii. 140.2; Herm. ad Viger. p. 732. p. 381 ; Ellendt, Lea. Soph. I. p. 427. 

2 Comp. ii. 23, iii. 18; Luke xxii. 22, xxiv. 26. 7 See Theile, ad Jac. p.7 ; and on Phil. i. 20, 

3 Comp. Flacius, Clav. I. p. 818. 8 Viewed by Zeller, no doubt, as an inven- 

4 Verse 38, xvii. 30, xx. 32, xxvii. 22. tion of pious legend, although nothing similar 


5 Ts to be so written with Tisch. and Lachm., occurs in the gospel history, to afford a con- 
comp. on Phil. ii. 23. necting link for such a legend. 


STATE OF THE CHURCH, 99 


against Peter and John (vv. 19, 21) thus came to nothing. Luke, how- 
ever, has not meant nor designated the free-spoken preaching as a glossola- 
lia (van Hengel).' 

Ver. 32. Connection: Thus beneficial in its effect was the whole occur- 
rence for the apostles (ver. 31); but (dé) as regards the whole body of those 
that had become believers, etc. (ver. 32). As, namely, after the former great 
increase of the church (ii. 41), a characteristic description of the Christian 
church-life is given (ii. 44 ff.); so here also, after a new great increase 
(ver. 4), and, moreover, so significant a victory over the Sanhedrim (vv. 
5-31) had taken place, there is added a similar description, which of itself 
points back to the earlier one (in opposition to Schleiermacher), and in- 
dicates the pleasing state of things as unchanged in the church now so 
much enlarged. — roi dé mAnVouc] of the multitude, i.e. the mass of believers. 
These are designated as mictebcavrec, having become believers, in reference to 
ver. 4; but in such a way that it is not merely those roAdoi, ver. 4, that are 
meant, but they and at the same time all others, who had till now become 
believers. This is required by rd mA7Voc, which denotes the Christian people 
generally, as contrasted with the apostles. Comp. vi. 2. The believers? 
heart and soul were one,—au expression betokening the complete harmony of 
the inner life as well in the thinking, willing, and feeling, whose centre is 
the heart,? as in the activity of the affections and impulses, in which they 
were oiuwuyor, and icdyuyor.® —xai ovdé eic] and not even a single one among 
so many. Comp. on John i, 3. — airs] belongs to izapy.*— As to the com- 
munity of goods, see on ii. 44 (R). 

Ver. 33. And with this unity of love in the bosom of the church, how 
effective was the testimony of the apostles, and the divine grace, which was 
imparted to all the members of the church ! — rie avaor. r. kup. ’Inoov]. This 
was continually the foundation of the whole apostolic preaching ; comp. . 
oni. 22. They bore their witness to the resurrection of Christ, as a thing to 
which they were in duty bound. Hence the compound verb amedidovv.* 
Observe, moreover, that here, where from ver. 32 onwards the internal con- 
dition of the chuveh is described, the apostolic preaching within the church 
is denoted. — The yaprc ueyaAn is usually understood (according to ii. 47) 
of the favour of the people. Incorrectly, as obdé yap évdens «.r.A., ver. 34, 
would contain no logical assignation of a reason for this. It is the divine 
grace, which showed itself in them in a remarkable degree (1 Cor, xv. 10). 
So, correctly, Beza, Wetstein, de Wette, Baumgarten, Hackett. — jv Erl 
mavt. adr.| upon them all: of the direction in which the presence of grace 
was active. Comp. Luke ii. 40. 

Vv. 34, 35. Tap] adduces a special ground of knowledge, something from 


1 As extra Biblical analogies to the extra- 
ordinary eoaA. 6 romos, comp. Virg. Aen. iii. 
90 ff.; Ovid. Met. xv. 672. Other examples 
may be found in Donghtaeus, Anal. II. p. 
71, and from the Rabbins in Schoettgen, p. 
421. 

2 Comp. Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 250. 

3 Phil. ii. 2, 20. Comp. 1 Chron. xii. 38 ; Phil. 


i. 27. See examples in Elsner, p. 317; Kypke, 
Il. p. 31. 

4 Comp. Luke viii. 3; Tob. iv. 8; Plat. Alc. 
I. p. 104 A. 

5 Which (see Wyttenbach, Bibl. crit. IIT. 2, 
56 ff.) kadamep Eyxeıpıo@evras aurovs TL Setxvuce 
Kai ws mepı obAnuaros Adyeı auto, Oecumenius, 
Comp. 4 Macc. vi. 32; Dem, 234. 5. 


100 CHAP. IV. 


which the xäpıs ueydAn was apparent. For there was found no one needy 
among them, because, namely, all possessors, etc. — rwAodvres K.r.A.] The pres- 
ent participle is put, because the entire description represents the process 
as continuing: being wont to sell, they brought the amount of the price of what 
was sold, etc. Hence also rımpaorou. is not incorrectly (de Wette) put in- 
stead of the aorist participle.‘ The aorist participle is in its place at ver. 
37. — napa rods mddaS]. The apostles are, as teachers, represented sitting 
(comp. Luke ii. 46) ; the money is brought and respectfully’ placed at their 
feet as they sit.? — kadörı dv «.r.?.] See on ii. 45. 

Vv. 36, 37. Aé] autem, introduces, in contradistinction to what has been 
summarily stated in vv. 34, 35, the concrete individual case of an honour- 
ably known man, who acted thus with his landed property. The idea in 
the dé is: All acted thus, and in keeping with it was the conduct of Joses. — 
inö (see the critical remarks) |: as at ii, 22. — vids tapakdjo.] 8131 13, son 
of prophetic address, i.e. an inspired instigator, exhorter. Barnabas was a 
prophet (Acts xiii. 1), and it is probable that (at a later period) he received 
this surname on the occasion of some specially energetic and awakening 
address which he delivered ; hence Luke did not interpret the name gen- 
erally by vids zpognteias, but, because the zpodyreia had been displayed pre- 
cisely in the characteristic form of tapdxAyjovs (comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 3), by 
vids rapaka, At Acts xi. 23 also, mapd«Anovs appears as a characteristic of 
Barnabas. We may add, that the more precise description of him in this 
passage points forward to his labours afterwards to be related. — Aevirns] 
Jer. xxxii. 7 proves that Levites might possess lands in Palestine.* Hence 
the field is not to be considered as beyond the bounds of the land (Bengel). 
— drdpy. ait. dypod] Genitive absolute. — 76 xpjna] in the singular: the sum 
of money, the money proceeds, the amount received.® 


NOTES BY AMERICAN EDITOR. 


(n) Sadducees. V.1. 


It is worthy of note that in the Gospels the Pharisees are the great oppo- 
nents of Christ, while in the Acts the Sadducees are most violently hostile 
to the apostles. - This may be explained by the facts, that Christ specially 
endangered the influence of the Pharisees by unmasking their formality and 
hypocrisy ; and that the apostles, in preaching so strenuously the resurrec- 
tion of Jesus, successfully assailed the leading tenet of the Sadducees. The 
sect of the Sadducees was not numerous, but it exerted much influence. Jo- 
sephus says: “Their opinions were received by few, yet by those of the 
greatest dignity.’ They rejected all tradition—the doctrine of a resurrection 


1 See, on the contrary, Kühner, II. § 675. 5. 

2 Comp. Chrysostom : moAAy 7 Tıun. 

3 The delivery of the funds to the apostles 
is not yet mentioned in ii. 45, and appears 
only to have become necessary when the in- 
erease of the church had taken place, With 
the alleged right of the clergy personally to 


administer the funds of the church, which 
Sepp still finds sanctioned here, this passage 
has nothing to do. 
4 See Ewald, Alterth. p. 406 

5 Herod. iii. 38; Poll. 9. 87; Wesseling, ad 
Diod. Sic. v. p. 436. 


NOTES. 101 


and a future state—the reality of direct divine influence, and strongly insisted 
on the perfect freedom of the human will. Their name is probably derived 
from a certain Zadok, pupil of a distinguished rabbi, whose followers held 
that ‘‘there was nothing for them in the world to come.” 


(0) Annas the high priest. V. 6. 


Caiaphas, son-in-law of Annas, at this time held the office of high priest, 
a fact which doubtless was known to Luke; but as Annas had been high 
priest, and even now wielded very great influence, the title is given to him. 
In the Gospel by Luke he is named along with Caiaphas, and that first in 
order, “Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests’’ (Luke iii. 1). On this 
passage Meyer writes: “But Annas retained withal very weighty influence, 
so that not only did he, as did every one who had been deylepev’s, continue 
to be called by the name, but, moreover, he also partially discharged the func- 
lions of high priest. Annas, whose son-in-law, and five sons besides, filled 
the office, was accustomed to keep his hand on the helm.” It is also probable 
that Annas was president of the Sanhedrim, an office of equal importance with 
that of high priest, who was usually made president. Caiaphas was made high 
priest by Valerius Gratus, a.p. 24, and held office for twelve years. He was 
entirely under the influence of Annas, his father-in-law. 


(P) For we cannot but speak. V. 20. 


Peter and John were dauntless in their determination to obey God, even 
though interdicted by the highest earthly authority, secular or sacred. Their 
conduct was manly, heroic, Christlike. Socrates is reported to have said, on 
being condemned for teaching the people their duties to God: “OÖ ye Athe- 
nians, I will obey God rather than you ; and if you would dismiss me and 
spare my life on condition that I should cease to teach my fellow-citizens, 
I would rather die a thousand times than accept the proposal.’ A similar 
instance of heroic fidelity to God’s law is recorded in 2 Mace. vii. :—A young 
man, scourged and threatened with death by Antiochus unless he deliberately 
violated the law of God, said : “I will not obey the king’s commandment ; but 
I will obey the commandment of the law that was given unto our fathers by 
Moses.” 


(Q) A stated prayer. V. 24. 


Some suppose that this was a liturgical form already introduced into the 
infant church, and used on this occasion as peculiarly appropriate. With 
this supposition Meyer agrees. But the prayer seems to have been the 
natural and sudden outburst of devotion and desire. Nor does the language 
used imply that all necessarily spoke aloud. It might be a concert of hearts 
rather than of voices, though all, as was customary, may have assented vocally 
at the close. Nor have we any intimation elsewhere of any forms of prayer, 
or of liturgical service at so early a period in the Christian Church. No evi- 
dence is found in the record that even the Lord’s Prayer was publicly used 
in the assemblies of Christians. 


102 CHAP. IV. 


(R) All things common. V. 32. 


See also notes on ii. 44.—‘‘' Common in the use of their property, not nec- 
essarily in the possession of it.” (Hackett.) “It would appear that by the 
community of goods is meant, not that the disciples lived in common, and 
that all property ceased among them, but that a common fund was instituted. 
The disciples were actuated by the spirit of love toward each other, which 
impelled them to regard the necessities of their brethren as their own. Not 
only did they give largely of their wealth, but many placed the whole of it 
at the disposal of the apostles.” ‘‘In the first glow of Christian life the 
disciples put into actual practice the precept of our Lord” (Luke xii. 33). 
(Gloag.) The community of goods was voluntary, local, and temporary, not 
obligatory then or now. 

We have here aspecimen of Christian Socialism. The narrative gives us such 
a view of it as throws the secular thing called by that name into contempt, and 
reveals the lamentable imperfection connected even with the highest form of 
spiritual fellowship now existing on this earth. From it we learn that the so- 
cialism which these first Christians enjoyed was attractive, religious, and amal- 
gamating. They recognized the authority, the creatorship, the revelation, and 
the predestination of God ; and in their prayers they invoked his protection, 
interposition, and aid. Their union was most hearty and practical ; it con- 
sisted with a diversity of position and service. It was under the spiritual and 
economical supervision of the apostles, and it was produced by the favor of 
God, for ‘ great grace was upon them all.” In what a sublime contrast 
does such a state of things stand to all the socialistic schemes of the world. 
Read the one hundred and thirty-third psalm. (Condensed from Thomas.) 
‘““ The ideal perfection of man’s condition is just that, in which neither poor nor 
rich are to be found, but every individual has his wants supplied. Intima- 
tions that such a condition must one day be realized, are to be found, not only 
in the reckless cry after freedom and equality, but also in the most exalted of 
our race. Pythagoras and Plato were captivated with this idea ; the Essenes 
and other small bodies attempted to realize it. But the outward realization of 
it requires certain internal conditions ; and just because these conditions were 
wanting, the attempts referred to could not but fail. These conditions, how- 
ever, were secured by the Redeemer, who poured pure brotherly love into the 
hearts of believers ; but as the Church herself still appears in this world ex- 
ternally veiled, so the true community of goods cannot be outwardly prac- 
tised.’’? (Olshausen.) 


CHAPTER V. 


Ver. 2. After ywvaıkös, Elz. Scholz have auroö, which Lachm. Tisch. Born. 
have rightly deleted, as it is wanting in A B D* N, min., and has evidently 
slipped in from ver. 1.— Ver. 5. After üxovovras, Lachm. Tisch. Born. have 
deleted the usual reading rai7ra; it is wanting in A BD N* min. Or. Lucif. 
and several vss., and is an addition from ver. 11. — Ver. 9. eire] is very suspi- 
cious, as it is wanting in B D N, min. Vulg.; in other witnesses it varies in 
position, and Or. has ¢yciv. Deleted by Lachm. Born. and Tisch. — Ver. 10. 
napa T. x.] Lachm. and Tisch. read xpos r. x. according to A B D NS, Or. ; other 
witnesses have éxi +r. z.; others, i767. x.; others, &vorıov. Born. also has 
mpos tT. =. But as Luke elsewhere writes apa 7. x. (Luke viii. 41, xvii. 16), 
and not mpös r. m. (Mark v. 22, vii. 25; Rev. i. 17), the Recepta is to be 
retained, — Ver. 15. mapa ras 7A,.] Lachm. reads ka? eis tas mA, after A B D** 
N, min. D* has only xar& x}. ; and how easily might this become, by an error 
of a transcriber, «al tas A., which was completed partly by the original «ata 
and partly by cis! Another correction was «ai &v rais miarelaıs (E). No version 
has xai. Accordingly the simple xara Aar., following D*, is to be preferred. — 
Instead of xAcvév, Lachm. Tisch. Born, have rightly «Awopiov (so A BD 8); 
kAwvdv was inserted as the wonted form. — Ver. 16. «is 'Iepovo.] eis is wanting in 
AB 8, 103, and some vss. Deleted by Lachm. But the retention of eis has 
predominant attestation ; and it was natural to write in the margin by the side 
of trav répié TéAewv the locally defining addition 'Ispovoaiyu, which became the 
occasion of omitting the eis ‘Iepovc. that follows. — Ver. 18. 7. yep. aizav] 
aitév is wanting in ABD SS, min. Syr. Erp. Arm. Vulg. Cant. Theophyl. Lu- 
eif., and omitted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. But see iv. 3.— Ver. 23. éorwras] 
Elz. has fw &or. But é&w has decisive evidence against it, and is a more 
precisely defining addition occasioned by the following écw. — mp6] Lachm. 
Tisch. Born. read &ri. according to ABD NS, 109; zpo is an interpretation. 
— Ver. 24. 6 re iepeds nal db orpat. riepoü. x. of dpytep.] AB DS, min. Copt. 
Sahid. Arm. Vulg. Cant. Lucif. have merely 6 re orpar.r. iepov x. of apytep. 
So Lachm. Rinck, and Born. But /epevs being not understood, and being 
regarded as unnecessary seeing that ol apyıep. followed, might very easily be 
omitted ; whereas there is no reason for its having be&n inserted. For the 
genuineness of jepevs also the several other variations testify, which are to be 
considered as attempts to remove the offence without exactly erasing the word, 
namely, of iepeis x. ö,orp. T. lep. kK, ol Gpx. and 6 re apyvepeds K. Öorp. r. iep. K. ol 
apy. — Ver. 25. After airois Elz, has Aéywv, against decisive evidence. An 
addition, in accordance with ver. 22 f. — Ver. 26. iva un] Lachm. Born. have 
py, according ttBDEN, min. But the omission easily appeared as necessary 
on account of é403. Comp. Gal. iv. 11.— Ver. 28. od is wanting in AB N“, 
Copt. Vulg. Cant. Ath. Cyr. Lucif. Rightly deleted by Lachm. and Tisch., 
as the transforming of the sentence into a question was evidently occasioned 
by Ernpörnoev. — Ver. 32. After touev, Elz. Scholz. Tisch. have avroö, which 


« 


104 CHAPS) V.,) 1-10 


A D* &, min., and several vss. omit. Itis to be defended. As papropes is still 
defined by another genitive, airod became cumbrous, appeared inappropriate, 
and was omitted. B has kai jueis Ev ait uaprupes (without Zouev), ete. But 
in this case EN is to be regarded as a remnant of the Zouev, the half of which 
was easily omitted after jueis ; and thereupon airud was transformed into ait@. 
The less is any importance to be assigned to the reading of Lachm. : kat nuels 
Ev aiT@ pdprupés kouev x.7.A.— Ver. 33. éBovAevorto] Lachm. reads EBovAovro, 
according to ABE, min. An interpretation, or a mechanical interchange, 
frequent also in Mss. of the classics ; see Born. ad xv. 37. — Ver. 34. Bpayd rı] 
ti, according to decisive evidence, is to be deleted, with Lachm. Tisch. 
Born. — arooröAovs] AB 8, 80, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Chrys. have avßporovs. So 
Lachm. Tisch. ; and rightly, as the words belong to the narrative of Luke, 
and therefore the designation of the apostles by «vdp@rovs appeared to the 
scribes unworthy. It is otherwise in vv. 35, 38.— Ver. 36. zpooexAiby] Elz. 
Griesb. Scholz. read Tp00ex0AA79n, in opposition to AB C** S, min., which 
have mpocexAiéy ; and in opposition to C* D* K H, min. Cyr., which have 
mpuoexayon (so Born.). Other witnesses have xpoceré6y, also mpocerAnpußn. 
Differing interpretations of the rpooe«Aidn, which does not elsewhere occur 
in the N. T., but which Griesb. rightly recommended, and Matth. Lachm. 
Tisch. have adopted. —- Ver. 37. ixavév] to be deleted with Lachm. and Tisch., 
as it is wanting in A* B N, 81, Vulg. Cant. Cyr., in some others stands before 
Aaöv, and in C D, Eus. is interchanged with roAvv (so Born.). — Ver. 38. In- 
stead of édcare, Lachm. has üdere, following ABC 8. A gloss. — Ver. 39. 
dvvaode] Lachm. Tisch. Born. have dvvnjoeoße, according to B C D E &, min., 
and some yss. and Fathers. Mistaking the purposely chosen definite expression, 
men altered it to agree with the foregoing future. — Instead of airovs, which 
Lachm. Tisch. Born. have, Elz. and Scholz read airé, against decisive testi- 
mony. An alteration to suit 76 épycv.— Ver. 41. After övöuaros Elz. has aizov, 
which is wanting in decisive witnesses, and is an addition for the sake of 
completeness. Other interpolations are : ’Ijc0v,—rod Xpiotot,—'Ijo0d Xpicrod, 
—Tov Kvplov,—Tov Veod, 


Vv. 1-10. Ananias* and Sapphira, however, acted quite otherwise. They 
attempted in deceitful hypocrisy to abuse the community of goods, which, 
nevertheless, was simply permissive (ver. 4). For by the sale of the piece 
of land and the bringing of the money, they in fact declared the whole sum 
to be a gift of brotherly love to the common stock; but they aimed only 
at securing for themselves the semblance of holy loving zeal by a portion of 
the price, and had selfishly embezzled the remainder for themselves. They 
wished to serve tıo masters, but to appear to serve only one. With justice, 
Augustine designates the act as saerilegium (‘‘ quod Deum in pollicitatione 
fefellerit ”') and fraus. — The sudden death of both is to be regarded as a result 
directly effected through the will of the apostle, by means of the miraculous power 
imparted to him, and not as a natural stroke of paralysis, independent of 


ITMVIIN, God pities ; Jer. xxviii. 1; Dan. i. the Aramaic NY’DW, formosa. Derived from 
6: LXX. Tob. v. 12. Itmay,however, be the the Greek cdmecpos, sapphire, it would have 
Tebrew name m2ly (Neh. iii. 23, LXX.), 2.e. probably been Sarpeıpivn. 
God covers.—The name Zardeipn is apparently 


SIN OF ANANIAS AND SAPPHIRA. 105 


Peter, though taking place by divine arrangement (so Ammon, Stolz, 
Heinrichs, and others). For, apart from the supposition, in this case 
necessary, of a similar susceptibility in husband and wife for such an im- 
pression of sudden terror, the whole narrative is opposed to it ; especially 
ver. 9, the words of which Peter could only have uttered with the utmost 
presumption, if he had not the consciousness that his own will was here 
active. If we should take ver. 9 to be a mere threat, to which Peter found 
himself induced by an inference from the fate of Ananias, this would be 
merely an unwarranted alteration of the simple meaning of the words, and 
would not diminish the presumptuousness of a threat so expressed. Nearly 
allied to this natural explanation is the view mingling the divine and the 
natural, and taking half from each, given by Neander, the holy earnestness 
of the apostolic words worked so powerfully on the terrified conscience ; 
and by Olshausen, the word of Peter pierced like a sword the alarmed 
Ananias, and thus his death was the marvel arranged by a higher dispos- 
ing power. But this view is directly opposed to the contents and the de- 
sign of the whole representation. According to Baur, nothing remains 
historical in the whole narrative except that Ananias and his wife had, by 
their covetousness, made their names so hated, ‘‘that people believed that 
they could see only a divine judgment in their death, in whatever way it 
occurred ;”’ all the rest is to be explained from the design of representing 
the rveöwa äyıov as the divine principle working in the apostles. Comp. 
Zeller, who, however, despairs of any more exact ascertainment of the state 
of the case. Baumgarten, as also Lange (comp. Ewald), agrees in the main 
with Neander; whilst de Wette is content with sceptical questions, al- 
though recognising the miraculous element so far as the narrative is con- 
cerned. Catholics have used this history in favour of the two swords of the 
Pope. — The severity of the punishment, with which Porphyry reproached 
Peter,' is justified by the consideration, that here was presented the first 
open venture of deliberate wickedness, as audacious as it was hypocritical, 
against the principle of holiness ruling in the church, and particularly in 
the apostles; and the dignity of that principle, hitherto unoffended, at 
once required its full satisfaction by the infliction of death upon the viola- 
tors, by which ‘‘ awe-inspiring act of divine church-discipline,’’* at the 
same time, the authority of the apostles, placed in jeopardy, was publicly 
guaranteed in its inviolableness (“ ut poena duorum hominum sit doctrina 
multorum,’’ Jerome). — évoo¢gic.] he put aside for himself, purloined.* — azo - 
T. TYAS] sc. rı.* 

Ver. 3. Peter recognises the scheme of Ananias as the work of the devil, 
who as the liar from the beginning (John viii. 44), and original enemy of the 
mvedua üyıov and of the Messianic kingdom, had entered into the heart of 
Ananias (comp. on John xiii. 27; Luke xxii. 3), and filled it with his 
presence. Ananias, according to his Christian destination and ability 


1 Jerome, pp. 8. p. 395 f. 

2 Thiersch, Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 46. 4 See Fritzsche, Conject. p. 36; Buttm. newt. 

3 Tit. ii. 10; 2 Macc. iv. 32; Josh. vii. 1; Gr. p. 139 (E. T. 159). Comp. Athen. vi. p. 
Xen. Cyr. iv. 2.42 ; Pind. Nem. vi. 106 ; Valck. 234 A : vood. Ex ToD xpymatos. 


106 CHAP, V., 4-6. 


(Jas. iv. 7; 1 Pet. v. 9), ought not to have permitted this, but should have 
allowed his heart to be filled with the Holy Spirit ; hence the question, 
diati Eminpwoev K.7.A. — petoacbai ce To mveüua 70 dy.] that thou shouldest by 
lying deceive the Holy Spirit: this is the design of &mAypuoev. The expla- 
nation is incorrect which understands the infinitive é«a7e«ds, and takes it 
only of the attempt : unde accidit, ut mveüua dy. decipere tentares (Heinrichs, 
Kuinoel). The deceiving of the Holy Spirit was, according to the design 
of Satan, really to take place ; and although it was not in the issue suc- 
cessful, it had actually taken place on the part of Ananias. — 70 rveöua ro 
dyıov] Peter and the other apostles, as overseers of the church, were pre- 
eminently the bearers and organs of the Holy. Spirit (comp. xiii. 2, 4) ; 
hence through the deception of the former the latter was deceived. — For 
examples of yeideodaı, of de facto lying, deception by an act, see Kypke, 
II. p. 82 f. The word with the accusative of the person’ occurs only here in 
the N. T., often in the classical writers.” — This instantaneous knowledge 
of the deceit is an immediate perception, wrought in the apostle by the 
Spirit dwelling in him. 

Ver. 4. When it remained, namely, unsold ; (the opposite, mpadev), did it 
not remain to thee, thy property ? and when sold, was it not in thy power ? — 
That the community of goods was not a legal compulsion, see on ii. 43. — 
év 77 07 E£ovola brjpye] sc. 7 rıum, Whick is to be taken out of mpaßev. It was 
in the disposal of Ananias either to retain the purchase-money entirely to 
himself, or to give merely a portion of it to the common use ; but not to do 
the latter, as he did it, under the deceitful semblance as if what he handed 
over to the apostles was the whole sum. The sin of husband and Wife is 
cleverly characterized in Constitt. ap. vil. 2. 4: KAépavres ta idea. — Ti Ore] 
quid est quod,i.e. cur? Comp. on Mark ii. 17. Wherefore didst thou fix 
this deed in thy heart ? i.e. wherefore didst thou resolve on this deed (namely, 
on the instigation of the devil, ver. 3) ? — ob« &yevow drOparots, a2Ad TH Oe@). 
The state of things in itself relative: not so much . . . but rather, is in the 
vehemence of the address conceived and set forth absolutely : not to men, 
but to God. ‘Asa lie against our human personality, thy deed comes not 
at all into consideration ; but only asa lie against God, the supreme Ruler 
of the theocracy, whose organs we are.’’* The taking it as non tam, quam® 
is therefore a weakening of the words, which is unsuited to the fiery and 
decided spirit of the speaker in that moment of deep excitement. The 
datives denote the persons, to whom the action refers in hostile contradis- 
tinction.* Examples of the absolute wevdec8ac with the dative are not 
found in Greek writers, but in the LXX. Josh. xxiv. 27; 2 Sam. xxii. 45 ; 
Ps. xviii. 44, Ixxviii. 36. By ro Oe Peter makes the deceiver sensible of 
his fatal guilt, for his sin now appeared as blasphemy. This ro 0:9 is quite 


1 Isa. Ivii. 11; Dent. xxxiii. 29 ; Hos. ix. 2. 

2 See Blomfild, Gloss. ad Aesch. Pers. 478. 

®Comp. xix. 21; the Heb. 29 Oy ow 
(Dan. i. 8; Mal ii. 2), and the classical ex- 
pression @éc@ax Ev dpecr, and the like. . 

* Comp. 1 Thess. iv. 8; Winer, p. 461 f. (E. 


™. 621). 

5 See also Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 781. 

6 Bernhardy, p. 99. Valckenaer well remarks : 
“WevcacOat twa notat mendacio aliquem 
decipere, weto. rırı mendacio contumeliam 
alicui facere. 


THEIR PUNISHMENT. 107% 


warranted, for a lying to the Spirit (ver. 3, ro xvedua) is a lie against God 
(7 089), whose Spirit was lied to. Accordingly the divine nature of the 
Spirit and his personality are here expressed, but the Spirit is not called God. 

(s) Vv. 5, 6. ’Egépvge] as in xii. 23 ; elswhere not in the N. T., but in the 
LXX. and later Greek writers. Comp. xx. 10. azopiyecv occurs in the old 
Greek from Homer onward. — &m wüvras rods dkovovtas] upon all hearers, 
namely, of this discussion of Peter with Ananias. For ver. 6 shows 
that the whole proceeding took place in the assembled church. The 
sense in which it falls to be taken at ver. 11, in conformity with the 
context at the close of the narrative, is different. Commonly it is taken 
here as in ver. 11, in which case we should have to say, with de Wette, 
that the remark was proleptical. But even as such it appears unsuitable 
and disturbing. — oi vewrepor] the younger men in the church, who rose up 
from their seats (avacravres), are by the article denoted as a definite class 
of persons. But seeing that they, unsummoned, perform the business as 
one devolving of itself upon them, they must be considered as the regular 
servants of the church, who, in virtue of the church-organization as hitherto 
developed, were bound to render the manual services required in the 
ecclesiastical commonwealth, as indeed such ministering hands must, both 
of themselves and also after the pattern of the synagogue, have been 
from the outset necessary.' But Neander, de Wette, Rothe, Lechler, and 
others? doubt this, and think that the summons of the vedrepor to this 
business was simply based on the relation of age, by reason of which they 
were accustomed to serve and were at once ready of their own accord. But 
precisely in the case of such a miraculous and dreadful death, it is far more 
natural to assume a far more urgent summons to the performance of the 
immediate burial, founded on the relation of a conscious necessity of ser- 
vice, than to think of people, like automata, acting spontaneously. — 
ovv£oreilav aüröv] means nothing else than contraxerunt eum.” We must 
conceive the stretched out limbs of him who had fallen down, as drawn 
together, pressed together by the young men, in order that the dead body 
might be carried out. The usual view: they prepared him for burial, by 
washing, swathing, etc., confounds ovoréAAev with mepeoréAAecv,* and, more- 
over, introduces into the narrative a mode of proceeding improbable in the 
case of such a death. Others incorrectly render: they covered him (de Dieu, 
de Wette) ; comp. Cant. : involverunt. For both meanings Eur. Tread. 
382 has been appealed to, where, however, od duuapros Ev yepoiv memioıs ov- 
veoräinsav means: they were not wrapped up, shrouded, by the hands of 
a wife with garments (in which they wrapped them) in order to be buried. 
As little is ovveor@aAdaı in Lucian. Imag. 7: to be covered ; but: to be pressed 
together, in contrast to the following dSinveudoSar, to flutter in the wind. The 
explanation amoverunt ® is also without precedent of usage. 


1See Mosheim, de red. Christ. ante Const. 4Hom. Od. xxiv. 292; Plat. Hipp. maj. p. 
p. 114. 291 D ; Diod. Sic. xix. 12; Joseph. Antt. xix. 

2 See also Walch, Diss. p. 79 f. 4.1; Tob. xii. 14 ; Ecclus. xxxviii. 17. 

3 Comp. Laud.: collexerunt (sic) ; Castal. : 5 Vulgate, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, and 


constrinxerunt ; 1 Cor. vii. 29. others. 


108 CHAP. W.,. 7-16. 


Ver. 7. But it came to pass—about an interval of three hours—and his wife 
came in. The husband had remained away too long for her. A period of 
three hours might easily elapse with the business of the burial, especially 
if the place of sepulture was distant from the city (see Lightfoot). After 
éyévero dE a comma is to be put, and os op. zp. didor. is a statement of time 
inserted independently of the construction of the sentence.’ The common 
view : but there was an interval of about three hours, and his wife came in, is at 
variance with the use, especially frequent in Luke, of the absolute éyévero,? 
As to the «ai after éyévero, see on Luke v. 12. On diuornua used of time, 
comp. Polyb. ix. 1. 1. 

Ver. 8. ’Azexpifn] comp. on iii. 12. Bengel aptly remarks : ‘‘ respondit 
mulieri, cujus introitus in coetum sanctorum erat instar sermonis. — Tooovrov] 
Sor so much, points to the money still lying there. Arbitrarily, and with 
an overlooking of the vividness of what occurred, Bengel and Kuinoel sup- 
pose that Peter had named the sum. The sense of tantilli, on which 
Bornemann insists,* results not as the import of the word, but, as else- 
where frequently,* from the connection. 

Vv. 9, 10. Wherefore was it agreed by you (dative with the passive, see 
on Matt. v. 21) to try the Spirit of the Lord (God, see vv. 4, 5)? i.e. to vent- 
ure the experiment, whether the rveöüwa dyiov, ruling in us apostles, was 
infallible.’ The repdfwv challenges by his action the divine experimental 
proof. — oi des] a trait of vivid delineation ;° the steps of those returning 
were just heard at the door" outside (ver. 10). — xpos röv dvdpa adrijs] beside 
her (just buried) husband. 

Ver. 11. $6305] quite as in ver. 5, fear and dread at this miraculous, 
destroying punitive power of the apostles. —é9’ bAqv r. ExkA. kal Ext mavras 
k.t.a.| upon the whole church (in Jerusalem), and (generally) on all (and so 
also on those who had not yet come over to the church, ver. 18) to whose 
ears this occurrence came. 

Vv. 12-16. After this event, which formed an epoch as regards the pres- 
ervation of the holiness of the youthful church, there is now once more® 
introduced as a resting-point for reflection, a summary representation of the 
prosperous development of the church, and that in its external relations. — dé 
is the simple zeradarırdv, carrying on the representation.—By the hands of 
the apostles, moreover, occurred signs and wonders among the people in great 
number. And they were all® with one accord in Solomon’s porch, and there- 


1 See on Matt. xv. 32 ; Luke ix. 28 ; Schaefer, 
ad Dem. V. p. 368. 

2 Gersdorf, Beitr. p. 235 ; Bornemann, Schol. 
p. 2. f. 

3 Schol. in Luc. p. 168. 

4 See Stallb. ad Plat. Rep. p. 416 E, 608 B; 
Lobeck, ad Soph. Aj. 747. 

5 Comp. Mal. iii. 15 ; Matt. iv. 7. 

6 Comp. Luke i. 79; Rom. iii. 15, x. 15. 

7 See on John v. 2; Acts iii. 10. 

8 Comp. ii. 43 f., iv. 32 ff. 

® All Christians, comp. ii. 1, in contrast to 
tov de Aoımav. The limitation of aämavres to 


the apostles (Kuinoel, Olshausen, and others) 
is by Baur urged in depreciation of the au- 
thenticity of the narrative. The apostles are 
assumed by Baur to be presented as a group 
standing isolated, as superhuman, as it were 
magical beings, to whom people dare not draw 
nigh ; from which there would result a con- 
ception of the apostles the very opposite of 
that which is found everywhere in the N. T. 
and in the Book of Acts itself ! Even Zeller 
has, with reason, declared himself opposed to 
this interpretation on the part of Baur. 


MIRACULOUS POWER. 109 


fore publiely: of the rest, on the other hand, no one ventured to join himself to 
them ; but the people magnified them, the high honour in which the people 
held the Christians, induced men to keep at a respectful distance from 
them : and the more were believers added to the Lord, great numbers of men and 
women ; so that they brought out to the streets, etc. The simple course of the 
description is accordingly : (1) The miracle-working of the apostles con- 
tinued abundantly, ver. 12: dia... moAla. (2) The whole body of 
believers was undisturbed in their public meetings, protected by the 
respect! of the people (a? joav, ver. 12 . . . 6 Aads, ver. 13), and the 
church increased in yet greater measure ; so that under the impression of 
that respect and of this ever increasing acceptance which Christianity 
gained, people brought out to the streets, etc., vv. 14, 15. Ziegler,? 
entirely mistaking the unartificial progress of the narrative, considered 
kai joav . . . yvvarkav as a later insertion ; and in this Eichhorn, Heinrichs, 
and Kuinoel agree with bim ; while Laurent? recognises the genuineness of 
the words, but looks on them as a marginal remark of Luke. Beck* 
declared even ver. 15 also as spurious. It is unnecessary even to make a 
parenthesis of ver. 14 (with Lachmann), as Gore in ver. 14 is not necessarily 
confined in its correct logical reference to ad’ éuey. air. 6 Aaös alone, but 
‘may quite as fitly refer to vv. 13 and 14 together.’ —tav 02 Aoırav] are the 
same who are designated in the contrast immediately following as 6 Aaos, 
and therefore those who had not yet gone over to them, the non-Christian popu- 
lation. It is strangely perverse to understand by it the newly converted 
(Heinrichs), or the more notable and wealthy Christians like Ananias (Beza, 
Morus, Rosenmiiller). By the röv Aoctév, as it forms the contrast to the 
dravres, Christians cannot at all be meant, not even as included (Kuinoel, 
Baur). — xoAAdo%ai avrois] to join themselves to them, i.e. to intrude into their 
society, which would have destroyed their harmonious intercourse.’ This 
avrois and avrovs in ver. 13 must refer to the üravrss, and so to the Chris- 
tians in general, but not to the apostles alone, as regards which Luke is 
assumed by de Wette to have become ‘a little confused.’? — ~a/Aov dé] in 
the sense of all the more, etc.” The bearing of the people, ver. 13, promoted 
this increase. —7@ kvpio] would admit grammatically of being construed 
with morevovres (xvi. 34) ; but xi. 24 points decisively to its being connected 
with pooeridevro. They were added to the Lord, namely, as now con- 
nected with Him, belonging to Christ. — 77707] “ pluralis grandis: jam 
non initur numerus uti iv. 4,’’ Bengel.*— «ard mAareias (see the critical 
remarks)] emphatically placed first: so that they (the people) through 
streets, along the streets, brought out their sick from the houses, etc. 


1“Est enim in sancta disciplina et in 4 Obss. exeq. crit. V.p. 17. 
sincero pietatis cultu arcana quaedam 5 Compare Winer, p. 525 (E. T. 706). 
oceuvorns, quae malos etiam invitos con- 6 Comp. ix. 26, x. 28, xvii. 834; Luke xv. 15. 
stringat,’ Calvin. It would have been more 7 See Nägelsbach on the Ziiad, p. 227, ed. 3. 
accurate to say : ‘‘quae profanum vulgus et 8 Comp. on the comparatively rare plural 
malos etiam,’ etc. rAn@n not again occurring in the N. T., Bremi. 


2 In Gabler’s Journ. f. theol. Lit. I. p. 155. ad Aeschin. adv. Clesiph. p. 361. 
3 Neulest. Stud. p. 138 f. 


110 CHAP. V., 17-20. 


— im wi. x. kpaßßar.] denotes generally: small beds? and couches. The 
distinction made by Bengel and Kuinoel with the reading «Awov, that 
the former denotes soft and costly, and the latter poor and humble, beds, 
is quite arbitrary. — épyou, ITlerpov] genitive absolute, and then 7 ond: 
the shadow cast by him. — «dv] at least? is to be explained as an ab- 
breviated expression: in order that, should Peter come, he might touch 
any one, if even merely his shadow (T) overshadowed him.* That cures actually 
took place by the shadow of the apostle, Luke does not state; but only the 
opinion of the people, that the overshadowing would cure their sick. It may 
be inferred, however, from ver. 6 that Luke would have it regarded as a 
matter of course that the sick were not brought out in vain, but were cured 
by the miraculous power of the apostle. As the latter was analogous to 
the miraculous power of Jesus, it is certainly conceivable that Peter also 
cured without the medium of corporeal contact ; but if this result was in 
individual instances ascribed to his shadow, and if men expected from the 
shadow of the apostle what his personal miraculous endowment supplied, 
he was not to be blamed for this superstition. Zeller certainly cannot 
admit as valid the analogy of the miraculous power of Jesus, as he does 
not himself recognise the historical character of the corresponding evangel- 
ical narrative. He relegates the account to the domain of legend, in which 
it was conceived that the miraculous power had been, independently of the 
consciousness and will of Peter, conveyed by his shadow like an electric 
fluid. An absurdity, which in fact only the presupposition of a mere 
legend enables us to conceive as possible. — 76 A760] the multitude (vulgus) 
of the neighbouring towns. — oirıves] as well those labouring under natural 
disease as those demoniacally afflicted ; comp. Luke iv. 40 f.—Then follows 
ver. 17, the contrast of the persecution, which, however, was victoriously 
overcome. ; 

Vv. 17, 18. ’Avaoras] The high priest stood up ; he raised himself : a graphie 
trait serving to illustrate his present interference.* ‘‘ Non sibi quiescendum 
ratus est,’? Bengel. The dpyepevs is, according to iv. 6, Annas, not Caia- 
phas, although the latter was so really. — kai müvres of odv aüro, 7 odca aipeoıs 
rov Saddovx.] and all his associates,° which were the sect of the Sadducees. This 
sect had allied itself with Annas, because the preaching of Christ as the 
Risen One was a grievous offence to them. Seeiv. 1,2. The participle 
# obca (not oi övres is put) adjusts itself to the substantive belonging to the 
predicate, as is often the case in the classical writers.° Luke does not 
affirm that the high priest himself was a Sadducee, as Olshausen, Ewald, 
and others assert. This remark also applies in opposition to Zeller, who 
adduces it as an objection to the historical character of the narrator, that 
Luke makes Annas a Sadducee. In the Gospels also there is no trace of the 
Sadducaeism of Annas. According to Josephus,’ he had a son who be- 


1 kAwvapiov, see the critical remarks, and 4 Comp. vi. 9, xxiii. 9; Luke xv. 18, al. 
comp. Epict. iii. 5. 13. 5 His whole adherents, ver. 21; Xen. Anad. 

2 kaı €av, see Herm. ad Viger. p. 838. 2 I ae. [333 E, 392 D. 

3 Comp. Fritzsche, Diss. in 2 Cor. II. p. 120, 6 See Kühner, § 429; Stallb. ad Liat. Rep. 


and see on 2Cor. x1, 16. TAT ZEIT 


ARREST AND DELIVERANCE. nak 


longed to that sect. — év rnpnoeı Snuoc.] rnpno. as in iv. 8. The public prison 
is called in Thue. v. 18. 6 also merely rö dnudovov ; and in Xen. List. vii. 36. 
oixia Ömuöora. 

Vv. 19, 20. The historical state of the case as to the miraculous mode of 
this liberation,—the process of which, perhaps, remained mysterious to the 
apostles themselves,—cannot be ascertained. Luke narrates the fact in a 
legendary’ interpretation of the mystery ;? but every attempt to refer the 
miraculous circumstances to a merely natural process (a stroke of lightning, 
or an earthquake, or, as Thiess, Eck, Eichhorn, Eckermann, and Heinrichs 
suggest, that a friend, perhaps the jailer himself, or a zealous Christian, 
may have opened the prison) utterly offends against the design and the 
nature of the text. It remains matter for surprise, that in the proceedings 
afterwards (ver. 27 ff.) nothing is brought forward as to this liberation and 
its circumstances. This shows the incompleteness of the narrative, but not 
the unhistorical character of the fact itself (Baur, Zeller), which, if it were 
an intentional invention, would certainly also have been referred to in the 
trial. Nor is the apparent uselessness of the deliverance, for the apostles 
are again arrested, evidence against its reality, as it had a sufficient ethical 
purpose in the very fact of its confirming and increasing the courage in faith 
of the apostles themselves. On the other hand, the hypothesis that Christ, 
by His angel, had wished to demonstrate to the Sanhedrim their weakness 
(Baumgarten), would only have sufficient foundation, provided the sequel 
of the narrative purported that the judges had really recognised the inter- 
position of heavenly power in the mode of the deliverance. Lange? refers 
the phenomenon to a visionary condition: the apostles were liberated ‘‘in 
the condition of genius-life, of second consciousness.’’ This is extravagant 
fancy introducing its own ideas, — üyye?os] not the angel, but an angel.‘ 
— Sud rjS vurrös] per noctem, i.e. during the night; so that the opening, the 
bringing out of the prisoners, and the address of the angel, occurred during 
the course of the night, and toward morning-dawn the apostles repaired to 
the temple.° The expression is thus more significant than dia ryv vorra® would 
be, and stands in relation with i76 rov öp9pov, ver. 21. Hence there is no 
deviation from Greek usage.’ — ££ayay.] But on the next day the doors 
were again found closed (ver. 23), according to which even the keepers had 
not become aware of the occurrence. — Ver. 20. oradevres] take your stand and 
speak ; in which is implied a summons to boldness. Comp. ii. 14. — ra 
biuara TIS [ws raürns] the words of thislife. What life it was, was self-evi- 
dent to the apostles, namely, the life, which was the aim of all their effort 
and working. Hence: the words, which lead to the eternal Messianic life, 
bring about its attainment. Comp. John vi. 68. See on tavrys, Winer, 
p., 223 (E. T. 297 f.) We are not to think here of a hypallage, according 
to which ravrns refers in sense to 7. Ayjuara.® 


1 Ewald also di-covers here a legendary form 5 Comp. xvi. 9, and see on Gal. ii. 1. 
(perhaps a duplication of the history in ch. 6 Nägelsbach on the J/iad, p. 222, ed. 3. 

2 Cop. Neander, p. 726. [xii.). 7 Winer, Fritzsche. 

3 Apost. Zeitalt. II. p. 68. 8 Bengel, Kuinoel and many others. Comp. 


4 Winer, p. 118 (E. T. 155). xiii. 26 ; Rom. vii. 24. 


112 CHAP. V., 21-80. 


Vv. 21-23. ‘Yrs rov 6p8por] about the dawn of day.* The akovoavrss is 
simply a continuation of the narrative: after they heard that, ete., as in ii. 
87, xi. 18, and frequently. — rapayevöusvos] namely, into the chamber where 
the Sanhedrim sat, as is evident from what follows. They resorted thither, 
unacquainted with the liberation of the apostles which had occurred in the 
past night, and caused the Sanhedrim and the whole eldership to be con- 
voked,in order to try the prisoners. — nal mdcav tiv yepovoiav| The importance 
which they assigned to the matter (comp. on iv. 6) induced them to sum- 
mon not only those elders of the people who were likewise members of the 
Sanhedrim, but the whole body of elders generally, the whole council of 
representatives of the people. The well-known term yepovoia is fittingly ? 
transferred from the college of the Greek gerontes* to that of the Jewish 
presbyters. Heinrichs * considers do. 7. yepovo as equivalent to 76 cuvédpiov, 
to which it is added as honorificentissima compellatio. Warranted by usage ;° 
but after the quite definite and well-known 76 ovvédprov, the addition would 
have no force.—Ver. 23 contains quite the artless expression of the official 
report. 

Vv. 24, 25. "O re lepeds] the (above designated) priest, points to the one 
expressly named in ver. 21 as 6 dpycepeds. The word in itself has not the 
signification high priest ; but the context ® gives to the general expression 
this special reference. — 6 otparyyos r. tepov] see on iv. 1. He also, as the 
executive functionary of sacred justice, was summoned to the Sanhedrim. 
—o! Apxıepeis] are the titular high priests ; partly those who at an earlier 
date had really held the office, and partly the presidents of the twenty-four 
classes of priests. Comp. on Matt. ii. 4.—The order in which Luke names 
the persons is quite natural. For first and chiefly the directing éepevs, 
the head of the whole assembly, must feel himself concerned in the unex- 
pected news; and then, even more than the apxıepeis, the orparnyös, because 
he, without doubt, had himself carried into effect the arrest mentioned at 
ver. 18, and held the supervision of the prison. — dınmöpovv . . . roöro] they 
were full of perplexity (see on Luke xxiv. 4) concerning them (the apostles), as 
to what this might come te—what they had to think as the possible termina- 
tion of the occurrence just reported to them. Comp. on ii, 12, also x. 17. 
— éoradres k.T.A.] Comp. vv. 20, 21. 

Vv. 26-28. O8 pera Bias] without application of violence. Comp. xxiv. 7 
and the passages from Polybius in Raphel. More frequent in classical 
writers is ia, é« Bias, mpds Biav. —iva pu) Audaoh.] contains the design of 
doßoövro yap t. Aaiv. They feared the people, in order not to be stoned. How 
easily might the enthusiasm of the multitude for the apostles have resulted 
in a tumultuous stoning of the orparnyös and his attendants (s77pér.), if, by 


1 On öpdpos, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. 275 f. ; 
and vro, used of nearness in time, see Bern- 
hardy, p. 267. Often soin Thue. ; see Krüger 
oni. 100.38. Comp 3Macec.v.2; Tob. vii. 11. 

2 Although nowhere else in the N. T.; 
hence here, perhaps, to be derived from the 
source used by Luke. 


3 Dem 489. 19: Polyb xxxvili. 5.1; Herm. 
Staatsalterth. § 24. 186. 

4 Following Vitringa, Archisynag. p. 356. 

51 Mace. xii. 6; 2 Macc. i. 10, iv. 44; Judith 
iv. 8, xi. 14, xv.8; Loesner, p. 178. 

6 So also in 1 Macc. xv. 1; Bar. 1. 7; Heb. 
y. 6; and see Krebs, p. 118. 


TRIAL BEFORE THE SANHEDRIM. 15 


any compulsory measures, such as putting them in chains, there had been 
fearless disregard of the popular feeling! It is erroneous that after verbs 
of fearing, merely the simple 7, wjxos «.r.A., should stand, and that there- 
fore iva un) 7.9. is to be attached to jyayev . . . Bias, and EHoß. «. r. A. to be 
taken parenthetically.! Even among classical writers those verbs are found 
connected with örws “7.2 Assuming the spuriousness of od, ver. 28 (see 
the critical remarks), the question proper is only to be found in «ai Sovrccbe 
«.r.A., for which the preceding (mapayyekia . . . didayis tuo) paves the way. 
— rapayy. rapnyy.] see iv. 17, 18.— ml r. övöu, 7.] as in iv. 17. — Bovdeobe] 
your efforts go to this ; ‘““ verbum invidiosum,’’ Bengel. — &rayayeiv «.7.4.] to 
bring about upon us, i.e. to cause that the shed blood of this man be avenged on 
us (by an insurrection of the people). ‘ Pro confesso sumit Christum jure 
occisum fuisse,’’ Calvin.” On the (contemptuous) rov7~.. . rovrov Bengel 
rightly remurks : “ fugit appellare Jesum ; Petrus appellat et celebrat, vv. 
30, 31.’’—Observe how the high priest prudently leaves out of account the 
mode of their escape. Disobedience towards the sacred tribunal was the ful- 
crum. 

Ver. 29. Kal of amöoroAoı] and, ‚generally, the apostles. For Peter spoke 
in the name of all; hence also the singular arorpıd.* — reidapxeiv #.r.A.] 
“Ubi enim jussa Domini et servi concurrunt, oportet illa prius exsequi.’’ ° 
The principle is here still more decidedly expressed than in iv. 19, and in 
all its generality. 

Vv. 30-32 now present, in exact reference to the previous Oe pdAAov, 
the teaching activity of the apostles as willed by God. — 6 0205 r. ar. u. ] 
Comp. iii. 13. — jyeuper] is, with Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Erasmus, and 
others, to be referred to the raising from the dead, as the following relative 
sentence contains the contrast to it, and the exaltation to glory follows 
immediately afterwards, ver. 31. Others, such as Calvin, Bengel, de 
Wette, hold that it refers generally to the appearance of Christ, whom God 
has made to emerge.® — diaxeıpideodaı]) to murder with one’s own hands.” This 
purposely chosen significant word brings the execution of Christ, which 
was already in iv. 10 designated as the strict personal act of the instiga- 
tors, into prominent view with the greatest possible force as such. So 
also in the examples in Kypke, II. p. 34. The following aorist «peydo. 
is synchronous with dexep. as its modal definition. — éx §vAov] on 
a tree: an expression, well known to the hearers, for the stake.® 
on which criminals were suspended. The cross is here designedly so 
called, not because the oraupös was a Roman instrument of death,’ but in 
order to strengthen the representation, because éx? fdAov reminded them of 


1 So Winer, p. 471 (E. T. 634), de Wette. 6 Maimon. Hilchoth. Melach. iii. 9. Comp. 
2 With iva un: Diod. Sic. ii. p. 329. See on iv. 19. 
Hartung, Partikell. IL. p. 116; Kühner, ad 6 jii. 22, 26, xiii. 23; Luke i. 69, vii. 16. 
Xen. Mem. ii. 9.2; Krüger on Thue. vi. 13. 1. 7See xxvi. 21; Polyb. viii. 23. 8. Comp. 
3Comp. Matt. xxiii. 35, xxvii. 25; Acts Staxerpovovtar, Job xxx. 24. 
xviii. 6; Josh. xxiii. 15; Judg. ix. 24; Ley. Sy’. Gen. x1. 19; Deut. xxi. 22; Isa. x. 26; 
xxii. 16. comp. Acts x. 39; 1 Pet. ii. 24; Gal. iii. 13. 


4 See Buttm. neut. Gr. p. 111 (E. T. 127%). ® See, on the other hand, ii. 35, iv. 10. 


114 CHAP. V., 31-34. 


the accursed (see on Gal. iii, 13). — Ver. 31. Him has God exalted by His 
right hand to be the Leader (not as in iii. 15, where a genitive stands along- 
side), z.e. the Ruler and Head of the theocracy, a designation of the 
kingly dignity of Jesus,’ and a Saviour (the author and bestower of the Mes- 
sianic salvation). On the idea, comp. ii. 36. As to 77 det. aizod, see on 
ii. 23. — dodvar petdvorav x.t.A.] contains the design of rotrov . . . rq deka 
avtov : in order to give repentance to the Israelites and the forgiveness of sins. 
With the exaltation of Christ, namely, was to commence His heavenly 
work on earth, through which He as Lord and Saviour, by means of the 
Holy Spirit, would continually promote the work of redemption to be ap- 
propriated by men, would draw them to Him, John xii. 32, 33, in bringing 
them by the preaching of the gospel (1 Pet. i. 23) to a change of mind 
(comp. xi. 18; 2 Tim. ii. 25), and so, through the faith in Him which set 
in with the weravosa, making them partakers of the forgiveness of sins in 
baptism (comp. 1 Pet. ill. 21). The appropriation of the work of salvation 
would have been denied to them without the exaltation of Christ, in the 
absence of which the Spirit would not have operated (John vii. 39, xvi. 7) ; 
but by the exaltation it was given’ to them, and that, indeed, primarily to 
the Jsraelites, whom Peter still names alone, because it was only at a later 
period that he was to rise from this his national standpoint to universalism 
(chapter x.). — With the reading airot uapr. (see the critical remarks), 
pdpt. governs two genitives different in their reference, the one of a person 
and the other of a thing,* and avrod could not but accordingly precede ; but 
the emphasis lies on the bold jets, to which then ro rveüua x.r.A. is added 
still more defiantly. — röv pyudr. rovrwv] of these words, i.e. of what has just 
been uttered. See on Matt. iv. 4. Peter means the raising and exaltation 
of Jesus. Of the latter the apostles were witnesses, in so far as they 
had already experienced the activity of the exalted Jesus, agreeably to His 
own promise (i. 5), through the effusion of the Spirit (ii. 33 f.). But Luke, 
who has narrated the tradition of the externally visible event of the ascen- 
sion as an historical fact, must here have thought of the eye-witness of 
the apostles at the ascension. — xa) Td mveiua J? TH üyıov] as WellWe . . . as 
also the Spirit,* in which case de, according to the Attic usage, is placed 
after the emphasized idea.° The Holy Spirit, the greater witness, different 
from the human self-consciousness, but ruling and working in believers, 
witnesses with them (ovunaprvpei, Rom. vill. 16). Comp. xv. 28.— rois 
neapy. wit@| to those who obey Him. In an entirely arbitrary manner this is 
usually restricted by a mentally supplied jjiv merely to the apostles ; whereas 
all who were obedient to God, in a believing recognition of the Messiah 


compatible with that more free rendering of 
dovrat. 


ı Comp. Thue. i. 132.2; Aesch. Agam. 250 ; 
and rınar apxnyoi, Eur. 77. 196. 


2 Not merely the actual impulse and occasion 
given, as, after Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and de 
Wette, also Weiss, Petr. Lehrbegr. p. 307 
(comp. his böbl. Theol. p. 138), would have us 
takeit. Against this view may be urged the 
appended kai apecw anaprıwvr, which is not 


3 See Winer, p. 180 (E. T. 239) ; Dissen, ad 
Pind. 01.1.94; Pyth. ii. 56. 

4On the other hand, see Hartung, Partikell. 
ip: isl 

5 Baeumlein, Pariik. p. 169. 


COUNSEL OF GAMALIEL. 115 


preached to them, comp. ii. 38, xi. 17, and so through the ömako) 775 
rioreus, Rom. i. 5, had received the gifts of the Spirit. They form the 
category to which the apostles belong. 

Ver. 33. Aterpiovro] not: they gnashed with the teeth, which would be 
dıempiov rods odövras,' but dissecabantur (Vulgate), comp. vil. 54: they were 
sawn through, cut through as by a saw,” —a figurative expression (comp. ji. 
87) of deeply penetrating painful indignation.* It is stronger than the non- 
figurative dıiaroveiodaı, iv. 2, Xvi. 18. — é3ovAevovto] they consulted, Luke xiv. 
31; Acts xv. 37. The actual coming to a resolution was averted by Gamaliel. 

Ver. 34. Gamaliel, ON “93, retributio Dei (Num. i. 10, ii. 20), is usually 
assumed to be identical with Rabban Gamaliel, Ip (senex), celebrated in 
the Talmud, the grandson of Hillel and the son of R. Simeon,—a view 
which cannot be proved, but also cannot be refuted, as there is nothing 
against it in a chronological point of view.‘ He was the teacher of the 
Apostle Paul (Acts xxii. 3), but is certainly not in our passage to be con- 
sidered as the president of the Sanhedrim, as many have assumed, because 
in that case Luke would have designated him more characteristically than 
by 7S Ev r. cvvedpiv dapıc. That he had been in secret a Christian,’ and been 
baptized, along with his son and Nicodemus, by Peter and John,° is a 
legend deduced by arbitrary inference from this passage.” An opposite 
but equally arbitrary extreme is the opinion of Pearson (Lectt. p. 49), that 
Gamaliel only declared himself in favor of the apostles from an inveterate 
partisan opposition to the Sadducees. Still more grossly, Schrader, II. p. 
63, makes him a hypocrite, who sought to act merely for his own elevation 
and for the kingdom of darkness, and to win the unsuspicious Christians 
by his dissimulation. He was not a mere prudent waiter on events 
(Thiersch), but a wise, impartial, humane, and religiously scrupulous man, 
so strong in character that he could not and would not suppress the warn- 
ings and counsels that experience prompted him to oppose to the passion- 
ate zeal, backed in great part by Sadducean prejudice, of his colleagues 
(ver. 17); and therefore to be placed higher than an ordinary jurist and 
politician dispassionately contemplating the case (Ewald). Revently it has 
been maintained that the emergence of Gamaliel here recorded is an unhis- 
torical röle® assigned to him ; and the chief? ground alleged for this view 


1 Lucian. Calumn. 24. 
2 Plat. Conv. p.193 A; Aristoph. Hq. 768 ; 


whether he might have regarded them as di- 
vine miracles or not. Ov, if Gamaliel gave 


1 Chron. xx. 3; See Suicer, Zhes. I. p. 880; 
Valckenaer, p. 402 f. 

3 Alberti, Gloss. p. 67: muxp@s exakeraıvor. 

4 Lightf. Hor. ad Matth. p. 33. 

5See already Recogn. Clem. i. 65; Beda, 
Cornelius a Lapide. 

6 Phot. cod. 171, p. 199. 

7 See Thilo, ad Cod. apocr. p. 501. 

8 Baur, see also Zeller. 

® Moreover, Baur pnts the alternative: 
Either the previous miracles, etc., actually 
took place, and then Gamaliel could not have 
given an advice so problematic in tenor, 


this counsel, then what is said to have taken 
place could not have occurred as it is related. 
But this dilemma proves nothing, as there isa 
third alternative possible, namely, that Ga- 
maliel was by the miracles which had occurred 
favorably inclined towards Christianity, but 
not decided ; and therefore, as a prudent and 
conscientious man, judged at least a further 
waiting forlight to be necessary. This favor- 
able inclination is evidently to be recognised 
in the mode in which he expresses his advice ; 
see on vv. 38, 39. 


116 CHAP. V., 35, 36. 


is the mention of Theudas, ver. 36 (but see on ver. 36), while there is fur- 
ther assumed the set purpose of making Christianity a section of orthodox, 
or in other words Pharisaic Judaism, combated by Sadducaeism. As if, 
after the exaltation of Christ, His resurrection must not really have stood 
in the foreground of the apostles’ preaching ! and by that very fact the 
position of parties could not but necessarily be so far changed, that now the 
main interests of Sadducaeism were most deeply affected. — vouodıdaoraros] 
a vouırös, one skilled in the law (canonist) as a teacher.1— Apaxd a short 
while.? —On tw roeiv] to put without.” — r. avOpdzovs (see the critical. re- 
marks): thus did Gamaliel impartially designate them, and Luke repro- 
duces his expression. The order of the words puts the emphasis on éw ; 
for the discussion was to be one conducted within the Sanhedrim. Comp. 
iv. 15. 

Ver. 35. ’Em rois avopdr. rovroıs] in respect of these men* might be joined 
to mpocéyere éavtois (Lachm.), as Luther, Castalio, Beza, and many others 
have done (whence also comes the reading 470 röv «.r.A. in E) ; yet the cur- 
rency of the expression mpdocev rı Ent rıvı® is in favour of its being con- 
strued with ri uéAAete mpaooew. The emphasis also which thus falls on em 
toiS avöp. is appropriate. — mpäooeıv (not orev) : agere, what procedure ye 
will take. Comp. iii. 17, xix. 36; and see on Rom. i. 32. Gamaliel will 
have nothing rporer&s (xix. 36) done; therefore they must be on their 
guard (mpoo&y. &avr.). 

Ver. 36. Tap gives the reason ® for the warning contained in ver 35. In 
proof that they should not proceed rashly, Gamaliel reminds them of two 
instances from contemporary history (vv. 36, 37) when fanatical deceivers 
of the people (without any interference of the Sanhedrim) were overthrown 
by their own work. Therefore there should be no interference with the 
apostles (ver. 38) ; for their work, if it should be of men, would not escape 
destruction ; but if it should be of God, it would not be possible to over- 
throw it. — mpd Toürwv T@v nuep.] i.e. not long ago. Ov A€éyet nalaıa dimynuara 
kalroıye Exwv, aAAA vedtepa, @ udAıora TpdS riorıv Hoav ioyvpd, Chrysostom. 
Comp. xxi. 88. Yet the expression, which here stands simply in contrast 
to ancient incidents (which do not lie within the experience of the genera- 
tion), is not to be pressed ; for Gamaliel goes back withal to the time before 
the census of Quirinus. — Ocvdäs] Joseph. Antt. xx. 5. 1, informs us that 
under the procurator Cuspius Fadus’ an insurgent chief Theudas (u) gave 
himself out to be a prophet, and obtained many adherents. But Fadus fell 
on the insurgents with his cavalry ; they were either slain or taken prisoners, 
and Theudas himself was beheaded by the horsemen. This narrative suits 
our passage exactly as regards substance, but does not correspond as regards 
date. For the Theudas of Josephus lived under Claudius, and Tiberius 





1 See on Matt. xxii. 35. 5 Wolf and Kuinoel in loc., Matthiae, p. 927. 
2 Thue. vi. 12; Polyb. iii. 96.2; 2 Sam. xix. 6 Erasmus well paraphrases it : ‘‘ Ex prae- 
36. teritis sumite consilium, quid in futurum 
3Comp. Xen. Cyr. iv. 1. 3; Symm. Ps. oporteat decernere.”’ 
exlii. 7. 7 Not before a.p. 44; see Anger, de temp. 


* Bernhardy, p. 251. rat. p. 44. 


THEUDAS. 34% 


Alexander succeeded Cuspius Fadus about a.p. 46; whereas Gamaliel’s 
speech occurred about ten years earlier, in the reign of Tiberius. Very 
many,' therefore, suppose, that it is not the Theudas of Josephus who is 
here meant, but some other insurgent chief or robber-captain acting a re- 
ligious part,? who has remained unknown to history, but who emerged in 
the turbulent times either of the later years of Herod the Great or soon 
after his death. This certainly removes all difficulties, but in what a vio- 
lent manner! especially as the name was by no means so common as to 
make the supposition of two men of that name, with the same enterprise 
and the same fate, appear probable, or indeed, in the absence of more pre- 
cise historical warrant, otherwise than rash, seeing that elsewhere histori- 
cal mistakes occur in Luke (comp. iv. 6; Luke ii. 1, 2). Besides, it is 
antecedently improbable that tradition should not have adduced an admon- 
itory example thoroughly striking, from a historical point of view, such as 
was that of Judas the Galilean. But the attempts to discover in our 
Theudas one mentioned by Josephus under a different name,* amount only 
to assumptions incapable of proof, and are nevertheless under the necessity 
of leaving the difference of names unaccounted for. But inasmuch as, if 
the Theudas in our passage is conceived as the same with the Theudas 
mentioned by Josephus, the error cannot be sought on the side of Josephus ;* 
as, on the contrary, the exactness of the narrative of Josephus secures at 
any rate the decision in its favour for chronological accuracy over against 
Luke ; there thus remains nothing but to assume that Zuke—or in the first 
instance, his source—has, in the reproduction of the speech before us, put into 
the mouth of Gamaliel a proleptic mistake. This might occur the more 
easily, as the speech may have been given simply from tradition. And the 
tradition which had correctly preserved one event adduced by Gamaliel, 
the destruction of Judas the Galilean, was easily amplified by an anachro- 
nistic addition of another. If Luke himself composed the speech in accord- 
ance with tradition, the error is in his case the more easily explained, since 
he wrote the Acts so long after the insurrection of Theudas,—in fact, after 
the destruction of the Jewish commonwealth,—that the chronological 
error, easy in itself, may here occasion the less surprise, for he was not a 
Jew, and he had been for many years occupied with efforts of quite another 
kind than the keeping freshly in mind the chronological position of one 


of the many passing enthusiastic attempts at insurrection. 


1 Origen, c. Cels. i. 6, Scaliger, Casaubon, 
Beza, Grotius, Calovius, Hammond, Wolf, 
Bengel, Heumann, Krebs, Lardner, Morus, 
Rosenmiiller, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Guericke, 
Anger, Olshausen, Ebrard. 

2So also Gerlach, @. Römischen Statthalt. 
p. 70, not without a certain irritation towards 
me, which I regret, as it contributes nothing 
to the settlement of the question. 

3 Wieseler, Synops. p. 103 ff., and Baum- 
garten, also Köhler in Herzog’s Zncykl. XVI. 
p. 40 f., holding it to refer to the scribe Mat- 


It has been ex- 


thias in Joseph. Bell. i. 33. 2, Antt. xvii. 6; 
Sonntag in the Stud. vw. Krit. 1837, p. 638 ff., 
and Ewald, to the insurgent Simon in Joseph. 
Bell. ii. 4. 2, Antt. xvii. 10. 6; Zuschlag in the 
monograph Theudas, Anführer eines 750. in 
Palast. erregten Aufstandes, Cassel 1849, tak- 
ingit to be the Theudion of Joseph, Antt. xvii. 
4, who took an active part in the Idumean 
rising after the death of Herod the Great, 

4 Baronius, Reland, Michaelis, Jahn, Ar- 
chäol. I. 2, § 127. 


118 CHAP. V., 37-40. 


plained as a proleptic error by Valesius,' Lud. Cappellus, Wetstein, Ottius,? 
Eichhorn, Credner, de Wette, Neander, Bleek, Holtzmann, Keim,’ as also 
by Baur and Zeller, who, however, urge this error as an argument against 
the historical truth of the entire speech. Olshausen considers himself pre- 
vented from assenting to the idea of a historical mistake, because Luke 
must have committed a double mistake,—for, first, he would have made 
Gamaliel name a man who did not live till after him ; and, secondly, he 
would have put Judas, who appeared under Augustus, as subsequent to 
Theudas, who lived under Claudius. But the whole mistake amounts to 
the simple error, that Luke conceived that Theudas had played his part 
already before the census of Quirinius, and accordingly he could not but place 
him before Judas.* — eivai teva] giving out himself? for one of peculiar im- 
portance. ® — © mpooex?i0n] to whom leaned, i.e. adhered, took his side: rorAovs 
qratyoev, Josephus, l.c.7 — &y&vovro eis obdev] ad nihilum redacti sunt.* They 
were, according to Josephus, /.c., broken up (dıe?V0noav) by the cavalry of 
Fadus, and partly killed, partly taken prisoners.—The two relative sen- 
tences @ mpooer?. and 65 dvnp&ßn are designed to bring out emphatically the 
contrast. Comp. iv. 10. 

Ver. 37. ’Iovdas 6 Tarıdaios] Joseph. Antt. xviii. 1. 1, calls him a Gaula- 
nite ; for he was from Gamala in Lower Gaulanitis. But in Anti. xviii. 1. 
6, xx. 5. 2, Bell. ji. 8. 1, xvil. 8, he mentions him likewise as TaArAeios. 
Apparently the designation ‘‘the Galilean ’’ was the inaccurate one used 
in ordinary life, from the locality in which the man was at work. Gaulani- 
tis lay on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee.—He excited an insurrec- 
tion against the census which Augustus in the year 7 aer. Dion.” caused to 
be made by Quirinius the governor of Syria (see on Luke ii. 2), represent- 
ing it as a work of subjugation, and calling the people to liberty with all 
the fanatical boldness kindled by the old theocratic spirit." — üriormoe . . . 
ömiow aitot| he withdrew them from the governmen), and made them his 
own adherents."' — arorero] a notice which supplements Josephus. Accord- 


1 Ad. Euseb. H. E.ii. 11. 

2 Spicileg, p. 258. 

3 According to Lange, Apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 
94, the difficulty between Luke and Josephus 
remains ‘‘somewhat in suspense.” Yet he 
inclines to the assumption of an earlier Theu- 
das, according to the hypothesis of Wieseler. 
According to this hypothesis, the Greek name 
(see Wetstein) Theudas (= deodas = deddwpos), 
preserved still on coins in Mionnet, must be 
regarded as the Greek form of the name 
nn. Bnt why should Gamaliel or Luke 
not have retained the name Matthias? Or 
what could induce Josephus to put Matthias 
instead of Theudas ? especially as the name 
DIN was not strange in Hebrew (Schoettg. 
p. 423), and Josephus himself mentions the 
later insurgent by no other name. 

4 Entirely mistaken is the—even in a lin- 
guistic point of view erroneous—interpreta- 


tion of pera rovrov (ver. 37) by Calvin, Wet- 
stein, and others, that it denotes not temporis 
ordinem, but, generally, insuper or praeterea. 

5 &eavrov, in which consists the arrogance, 
the self-exaltation ; ““ character falsae doc- 
trinae,” Bengel. 

6 mpobnrns EAeyer eivaı, Joseph. Anti. xx. 5. 
1. On rıs, eximius quidam (the opposite 
ovdecs—Valckenaer, ad Herod. iii. 140), see 
Wetstein in doc. ; Winer, p. 160 (E. T. 218); 
Dissen, ad Pind. Pyth. viii. 95, p. 299. 

7Comp. Polyb. iv. 51. 5; also mpdcxAtots, 
Polyb. vi. 10. 10, v. 51. 8. 

8 See Schleusner, 7’hes. TV. p. 140. 

9 Thirty-seven years after the battle of Ac- 
tinm, Joseph. Anti. xviii. 21. 

10 Joseph. Anit. xviii. 1.1. See Gerlach, d. 
Röm. Statthalter, p. 45 f.; Paret in Herzog’s 
Encykl. VII. p. 126 f. 

11 Attraction : Hermann, ad Vig. p. 893. 


JUDAS OF GALILEE. 119 
ing to Joseph. Antt. xx. 5. 2, two sons of Judas perished at a later period, 
whom Tiberius Alexander, the governor of Judaea, caused to be crucified.* 
Still later a third son was executed.? — dtecxopricbncar] they were scattered, 
— which does not exclude the continuance of the faction, whose members 
were afterwards very active as zealots, and again even in the Jewish war ;° 
therefore it is not an incorreet statement (in opposition to de Wette). 

Vv. 38-40. Kei] is the simple copula of the train of thought ; 7d viv as in 
iv. 29. — !E üvfponov] of human origin (comp. Matt. xxi. 25), not proceed- 
ing from the will and arrangement of God (not &x Oeoö).— 7 Bovin airy 7 ro 
£py. roöro] ‘‘Disjunctio non ad diversas res, sed ad diversa, quibus res 
appellatur, vocabula pertinet.’’* This project or (in order to denote the 
matter in question still more definitely) this work (as already in the act of 
being executed). — xatadvdjcerac] namely, without your interference. This 
conception results from the antithesis in the second clause: od divacbe 
kataddcat abrovs. For similar expressions from the Rabbins, see Schoettgen.° 
The reference of xaraAveıv to persons (aitovs, see the critical remarks) who 
are overthrown, ruined, is also current in classical authors."—Notice, further, 
the difference in meaning of the two conditional clauses: éav 7 and ei. . . 
éorev,’ according to which the second case put appeared to Gamaliel as the 
more probable. — unrore kai Deouayoı edpebjre|] although grammatically to be 
explained by a oxerr£ov, mpoosxere éavtois (Luke xxi. 84), or some similar 
phrase floating before the mind, is an independent warning : that ye only be 
not found even fighters against God. Valckenaer and Lachmann (after 
Pricaeus and Hammond) construe otherwise, referring wnrore to édoare 
abrovs, and treating 67: . . . aivovs as a parenthesis, A superfluous inter- 
ruption, to which also the manifest reference of Geoudyo. to the directly 
preceding ei 0} éx Oeod éorw «.7.2, is Opposed. — kai] is to be explained ellip- 
tically : not only with men, but also further, in addition.” — Heouaxor]."” — 
éxeicfycav| even if only in tantum, and yet how greatly to their self- 
conviction on account of their recent condemnation of Jesus ! — deipavrec] 
The Sanhedrim would at least not expose themselves, as if they had insti- 
tuted an examination wholly without result, and therefore they order the 
punishment of stripes, usual for very various kinds of crime—here, proved 
disobedienee—but very ignominious (comp. xvi. 37, xxii.).—Concerning the 
counsel of Gamaliel generally, the principle therein expressed is only right 
conditionally, for interference against a spiritual development must, in 
respect of its admissibility or necessity, be morally judged of according 
to the nature of the cases ; nor is that counsel to be considered as an abso- 


1 Comp. Bell. ii. 8. 1. 

2 Bell. ii. 17.8 f.; Vit. v. 11. 

3 Joseph. Bell. ii. 17. 7. 

4 Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 277. 

5 Pirke Aboth, iv. 11, al. Comp. Herod. ix. 
16: 6, rı det yeveodar ex Tov Oeod, aunxaror 
amotpeWar avdpwrw. Eur. Hippol. 476. 

6 Xen. Cyr. viii. 5. 24; Plat. Legg. iv. p. 
714C; Lucian. Gall. 23. Comp. katadvots 
Tov tupavvov, Polyb. x. 25. 3, etc. 


7 Comp. Gal. i. 8,9; and see Winer, p. 277 f. 
(E. T. 369) ; Stallb. ad Plat. Phaed. p. 93 B. 

5 See Hom. Z. i. 26, ii. 195; Matt. xxv. 9 
(Elz.); Rom xi. 21; Baenmlein, Partik. p. 
283 ; Niigelsb. on the J/iad, p. 18, ed. 3. 

®See Hartung, Partikel. I. p. 134. 

10 See Symm. Prov. ix. 18, xxi. 16; Job xxvi. 
5; Heraclid. Alleg. 1; Lucian. Jov. Tr 45. On 
the thing itself, comp. Hom. //. vi. 129: oix 
av Eywye deoiow Emovparvioroı maxoiunv. 


120 NOTES. 


lute maxim of Gamaliel, but as one which is here presented to him 
by the critical state of affairs, and is to be explained from his predomi- 
nant opinion that a work of God may be at stake, as he himself indeed 
makes this opinion apparent by & . . . éorw, ver. 39 (see above). 

Ver. 41 f. Xaipovres] comp. Matt. v. 11, 12.— dtp rod övöuaros] placed 
first with emphasis : for the name, for its glorification. For the scourging 
suffered tended to that effect, because it was inflicted on the apostles on 
account of their steadfast confession of the name. Comp. ix. 16. ‘‘ Quum 
reputarent causam, praevalebat gaudium,*’ Calvin. The absolute To övoua 
denotes the name kar’ é£oyqv,—namely, ‘‘ Jesus Messiah’? (iii. 6, iv. 10), the 
confession and announcement of which was always the highest and holiest 
concern of the apostles. Analogous is the use of the absolute Dw (Lev. 
xxiv. 11, 16), in which the Hebrew understood the name of his Jehovah as 
implied of itself. Comp. 3 John 7. — xaryiid0. arınach.| An oxymoron.’ — 
rücav huégpav] every day the odx éxavovro in preaching took place.” They did 
it day after day without cessation. — xar’ oixov] domi, in the house, a con- 
trast to ev ro lepo. See on ii. 46. — averavovto dudüokorres].”— cai ebayyed. “Ino. 
+. X.] and announcing Jesus as the Messiah, a more specific definition of 
dWadoxovres as regards its chief contents. 


NOTES BY AMERICAN EDITOR. 
(s) Ananias. V.1. 


His punishment.— The statement of our author, though strong, is near the 
truth. Peter was merely the organ of the Holy Spirit, and his address was 
the sentence of death. It was not Peter who either pronounced or exe- 
cuted the sentence, but God himself. Dr. Davidson observes: ‘ It is evidently 
set forth as the miraculous instantaneous effect of Peter’s words. This, with 
the harshness of the divinely inflicted punishment, which is out of character 
with the gospel history, prevents the critic from accepting the fact as histori- 
cal, at least in the way it is told.” Others denounce the punishment as too 
severe, and not in accordance with the benign spirit of Christ. Porphyry ac- 
euses Peter of cruelty. To this charge Jerome very justly replies: “The 
apostle Peter by no means calls down death upon them, as the foolish Por- 
phyry falsely lays to his charge, but by a prophetic spirit announces the judg- 
ment of God, that the punishment of two persons might be the instruction of 
many.” “But whether used directly against Peter, or indirectly against God 
himself, the charge of rashness and undue severity may be repelled without 
resorting to the ultimate plea of the divine infallibility and sovereignty, by the 
complex nature of the sin committed, as embracing an ambitious and vainglo- 
rious desire to obtain the praise of men by false pretences ; a selfish and ava- 
ricious wish to do this at as small expense as possible ; a direct falsehood, 
whether told by word or deed, as to the completeness of the sum presented ; 
but above all, an impious defiance of God the Spirit, as unable to detect the 


1 Comp. Phil. i. 29; 2 Cor. xi, 26-30; Gal. 3 See Herm. ad Viger. p. %71; Bernhardy, 
vi. 14, 17, al. 1 Pet. ii. 19. p. 477. 
2 See Winer, p. 162 (E. T. 214). 


NOTES. 121 


imposture or to punish it; a complication and accumulation of gratuitous and 
aggravated crimes, which certainly must constitute a heinous sin—if not the 
unpardonable sin—against the Holy Ghost.” (Alexander.) The sin of Ananias 
was an aggravated combination of all iniquity—vanity and hypocrisy, covetous- ' 
ness and fraud, impiety, and contempt of God, As analogous instances refer 
to the fate of Nadab and Abihu ; Korah and his company ; the man that gath- 
ered sticks upon the Sabbath day, and Achan. 


(rt) Peter's shadow. V.15. ~ 


“The expression is rhetorical; the sick were anxious that something be- 
longing to Peter might touch them, even if it were only his shadow.” It is 
not said, but it is implied, that cures were thus wrought. Analogous in- 
stances are recorded in the evangelical history: the infirm woman (Matt. ix, 
21, 22); cures effected by handkerchiefs from the person of Paul (Acts xix. 
12). See specially Lange, in loc. 


(u) Theudas. V. 36. 


Josephus gives the history of an impostor named Theudas, who drew a 
great multitude of people after him. He was apprehended and beheaded 
by order of the Roman ruler. But this event occurred in the reign of 
Claudius, about ten years after the speech of Gamaliel had been delivered. 
Assuming that this Theudas is the one referred to by Gamaliel, a charge of 
anachronism and ‘““historical mistakes ” is brought against Luke. Now without 
making any comparison between the two historians for accuracy, or insisting 
that Luke is as good authority as Josephus, the assumed difficulty may be re- 
moved by supposing that Gamaliel referred to some one of the many turbulent 
insurrectionary chiefs, of whom Josephus speaks as overrunning the land 
about the time of the death of Herod the Great. He says: ‘At this time 
there were great disturbances in the country, and the opportunity that now 
offered itself induced a great many to set up for kings.” ‘Judea was at this 
time full of robberies; and as the several companies of the seditious lighted 
upon any one to lead them, he was created a king forthwith.” 

‘The name was not an uncommon one, and it can excite no surprise that 
one Theudas, who was an insurgent, should have appeared in the time of Au- 
gustus, and another, fifty years later, in the time of Claudius. Josephus gives 
an account of four men named Simon, who followed each other within forty 
years, and of three named Judas within ten years, who were all instigators of 
rebellion.”’ (Hacketl.) Now such an explanation, or others equally probable, 
must be proved to be false, before a charge of ignorance or error is brought 
against the writer of the Acts. The “charge is in the last degree improbable, 
considering how often such apparent inconsistencies are reconciled by the dis- 
covery of new but intrinsically unimportant facts ; and also the error, if it 
were one, must have been immediately discovered, and would either have been 
rectified at once, or made the ground of argumentative objection.” (Alexander, ) 


122 CHAPS Vi.; 2h: 


CHAPTER Vi. 


VER. 3. ‘Ayiov] is wanting in B D 8, 137, 180, vss. Chrys. Theophyl. De- 
leted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. ; the Syr. expresses xupiov. A more precisely de- 
fining addition (comp. ver. 5), which is also found inserted at ver. 10. — kara- 
ormooueu] Elz. has xarcorjowuev, against decisive evidence, An over-hasty cor- 
rection. — Ver. 5, mAjpn] A C* D E HN, min. have zAnons, which, although 
adopted by Lachm., is intolerable, and is to be regarded as an old error of 
transcription, — Ver. 8. yapitos] Elz. has riorews, contrary to decisive evidence. 
From ver. 5. — Ver. 9. «ai ’Aoias] is deleted by Lach., following A D* Cant. 
It was easily overlooked after KiAvcIAZ ; whereas it would be difficult to con- 
ceive a reason for its being inserted. — Ver. 11. BAdodnua] D has ‘BAacgnuias. 
Recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Born. But pjyata BAdopnua was ex- 
plained by the weakly-attested PAaodnnias (blasphemies) as a gloss ; and this, 
taken as a genitive, thereupon suppressed the original 6/aodyua. — Ver. 13. 
After fnuara, Elz. has BAdconua, against a great predominance of evidence. 
From ver. 11. — After dyiov, Elz. has roörov, which, it is true, has in its favour 
BC, Tol. Sahid. Syr. utr. Chrys. Theophyl. 2, but was added with reference to 
ver. 14, as the meeting of the Sanhedrim was conceived as taking place within 
the area of the temple court. 


Vv. 1-7. An explanation paving the way for the history of Stephen, 
ver. 8 ff. Ver. 7 is not at variance with this view. 

Ver. 1. Aé] Over against this new victory of the church without, there 
now emerges a division in its own bosom. —év raiS juép. ravr.] namely, 
while the apostles continued, after their liberation, to devote themselves 
unmolested to their function of preaching (v. 42). Thus this expression 
(0°1D°3 ON) finds its definition, although only an approximate one, always 
in what precedes. Comp. on Matt. iii. 1. — rAnAvvovrwov] as a neuter verb 
(Bernhardy, p. 339 f.): amidst the inerease of the Christian multitude, by 
which, consequently, the business of management referred to became 
the more extensive and difficult.!— 'EAAnviorns, elsewhere only preserved 
in Phot. Bibl. (see Wetstein), according to its derivation, from éA2nvicev, to 
present oneself in Grecian nationality, and particularly to speak the Greek 
language ;? and according to its contrast to 'E3paiovs, is to be explained: a 
Jew, and so non-Greek, who has Greek nationality, and particularly speaks 
Greek: ix. 29. Comp. Chrysustom and Oecumenius. As both appella- 
tions are here transferred to the members of the Christian church at Jeru- 
salem, the ‘E@paioe are undoubtedly : those Christians of the church of Jerusa- 
lem, who, as natives of Palestine, had the Jewish national character, and spoke 


1 Comp. Aesch. Ag. 869; Polyb. iii. 105.7; Apoer. 
Herodian, iii. 8. 14, often in the LXX. and 2 Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 380. 


A MURMURING. 123 


the sacred language as their native tongue ; and the 'EAAnviorai are those mem- 
bers of this church, who were Greek-Jews, and therefore presented themselves in 
Greek national character, and spoke Greek as their native language. Both 
parties were Jewish Christians; and the distinction between them turned 
on the different relation of their original nationality to Judaism. And as 
the two parties (v) embraced the whole of the Jews who had become Chris- 
tian, it is a purely arbitrary limitation, when Camerarius, Beza, Salmasius, 
Pearson, Wolf, Morus, Ziegler,! would understand exclusively the Jewish 
proselytes who had been converted to Christianity. These are ineluded 
among the Greek-Jews who had become Christian, but are not alone meant ; 
the Jews by birth who had been drawn from the dcacropa to Jerusalem are 
are also included. The more the intercourse of Greek-Jews with foreign 
culture was fitted to lessen and set aside Jewish narrow-mindedness, so 
much the more easy it is to understand that many should embrace Chris- 
tianity.* — po] denotes, according to the context, the antagonistic direc- 
tion, as in Luke v. 30. Comp. Acts ix. 29. — &v 77 dur. 77 Kabyu.] in the 
daily service (2 Cor. viii. 4, ix. 1, 13), here: with provisions, in the daily 
distribution of food. Ver. 2 requires this explanation. — xaßnuepivös only 
here in the N. T., more frequently in Plutarch, etc., belongs to the later 
Greek.* — The neglect of due consideration, rapadeopeiv,* which the widows 
of the Hellenists met with, doubtless by the fault not of the apostles, but 
of subordinates commissioned by them, is an evidence that the Jewish seli- 
exaltation of the Palestinian over the Greek-Jews,° so much at variance 
with the spirit of Christianity,° had extended also to the Christian com- 
munity, and now on the increase of the church, no longer restrained by 
the fresh unity of the Holy Spirit, came into prominence as the first germ 
of the later separation of the Hebrew and Hellenistic elements ;’ as also, 
that before the appointment of the subsequently named Seven, the care of 
the poor was either exclusively, or at least chiefly, entrusted to the Hebrews.*® 
The widows are not, as Olshausen and Lekebusch, p. 93, arbitrarily assume, 
mentioned by synecdoche for all the poor and needy, but simply because 
their neglect was the occasion of the yoyyvouös. We may add, that this 
passage does not presuppose another state of matters than that of the com- 
munity of goods formerly mentioned (Schleiermacher and others), but only 
a disproportion as regards the application of the means thereby placed at 
their disposal. There is nothing in the text to show that the complaint as 
to this was unfounded (Calvin). 

Ver. 2. Td rAj00s rév uaßnröv] the mass of the disciples ; i.e. the Christian 
multitude in general, not merely individuals, or a mere committee of the 
church. Comp. iv. 32. It is quite as arbitrary to understand, with Light- 


1 Einleit. in d. Br. a. d. Hebr. p. 221, and LXX. and Apocr., but see Kypke, II. p. 36. 


Pfannkuche, in Eichhorn’s allg. Bibl. VIII. 5 Lightf. Hor. ad Joh. p. 1031. 

p. 471. 6 Gal. iii. 28; Col. iii. 11; Rom. x. 12; 1 
2 Comp. Reuss in Herzog’s Encykl. V. p. Cor. xii. 13. 

703 f. 7 Comp. Lechler, apost. Zeit. p. 333. 
s Judith xii. 15 ; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 55. 8 Mosh. de reb. Christ. ante Const. pp. 118, 


4 Not elsewhere in the N. T., nor in the 139. 


124 CHAP. VI, 3-5. 

foot, only the 120 persons mentioned in i. 15, as, with Mosheim and 
Kuinoel, to suppose that tle church of Jerusalem was divided into seven 
classes, which assembled in seven different places, and had each selected from 
their midst an almoner. As the place of meeting is not named, it is an 
over-hasty conclusion that the whole church could not have assembled all 
at once. — ook dpeotév ori] non placet.' The Vulgate, Beza, Calvin, Pisca- 
tor, Casaubon, Kuinoel, incorrectly render: non aequum est, which the word 
never means, not even in the LXX. It pleased not the apostles to leave the 
doctrine of God—its proclamation—just because the fulfilment of the proper 
duty of their calling pleased them. — xarareiyp.] A strong expression under 
a vivid sense of the disturbing element (fo leave in the lurch).” — dıakoveiv 
rpanelaıs] to serve tables, i.e. to be the regulators, overseers, and dispensers 
in reference to food. The expression, which contains the more precise 
definition for 77 dvaxovig of ver. 1, betrays “ indignitatem aliquam’? (Bengel). 
—The reference which others have partly combined with this. partly as- 
sumed alone, of zpamefa to the money-changers’ table,” is excluded, in the 
absence of any other indication in the text, by the diaxoveiv used statedly 
of the ministration of food.* Moreover, the designation of the matter, as 
if it were a banking business, would not even be suitable. The apostles 
would neither be tparefoxduor nor tpareforovoi.® They may hitherto in the 
management of this business have made use, without fixed plan, of the 
assistance of others, by whose fault, perhaps, the murmuring of the 
Hellenists was occasioned. 

Ver. 3. Accordingly (oöv), as we, the apostles, can no longer undertake 
this business of distribution, look ye out, i.e. direct your attention to test 
and select, etc. —éxrd] (w) the sacred number. —- cogias] quite in the 
usual practical sense : wisdom, which determines the right agency in con- 
formity with the recognised divine aim. With a view to this required con- 
dition of fulness of the Spirit and of wisdom, the men to be selected from 
the midst of the church were to be attested, i.e. were to have the corre- 
sponding testimony of the church in their favour.*— od$ katacrjcomev Emi TIS 
xpelas raurns] whom we (the apostles) will appoint,’ when they are chosen, 
over the business in question.” This ofiecium, ministration,® is just that, of 
which the distributing to the widows was an essential and indeed the chief 
part, namely, the care of the poor in the church, not merely as to its Hedlen- 
istic portion.!” The limitation to the latter would presuppose the existence 
of a special management of the poor already established for the Hebrew 


1 xii. 3; John viii. 29; Herod.i.119; Plato, 
Def. p. 415 A. 

2On the form, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 
713 ff. 

3 Matt. xxi. 12, Luke xix. 23 (‘‘pecunia in 
usum pauperum collecta et iis distribuenda,” 
Kuinoel). 

4 Wetst. ad Matth. iv. 11. 

5 Athen. IV. p. 170. 

6 Comp. xvi. 2 and on Luke iv. 22; Dion. 
Hal. Ant. ii. 26. 


7The opposite of kxatactyc. emi THs XP. 
(comp. 1 Macc. x. 37) is: nerastneaodaı aro 
ris xp-, Polyb. iv. 87. 9; 1 Mace. xi. 63. 

8 On &ri with the genilöve, in the sense of 
official appointment over something, see 
Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 474; Kiihner, ad Xen. 
Mem. iii. 3. 2. 

%° See Wetstein and Schweighäuser, Zea. 
Polyb. p. 665. 

10 Vitringa, de Synag. ii. 2. 5, Mosheim, 
Heinrichs, Kuinoel, 


CHOOSING THE SEVEN. 125 


portion, without any indication of it in the text ; nor is it supported by the 
Hellenic ames of the persons chosen (ver. 5), as such names at that time 
were very common also among the Hebrews. Consequently the hypothesis, 
that pure //ellenists were appointed by the impartiality of the Hebrews,’ is 
entirely arbitrary ; as also is the supposition of Gieseler,? that three He- 
brews and three Hellenists, and one proselyte, were appointed ; although 
the chosen were doubtless partly Hebrews and partly Hellenists.—Observe, 
moreover, how the right to elect was regarded by the apostles as vested in 
the church, and the election itself was performed by the church, but the ap- 
pointment aud consecration were completed by the apostles ; the requisite 
qualifications, moreover, of those to be elected are defined by the apostles.* 
From this first regular overseership of alms, the mode of appointment to 
which could not but regulate analogically the practice of the church, was 
gradually developed the diaconate, which subsequently underwent further 
elaboration (Phil. i. 1).* It remains an open question whether the overseers 
corresponded to the D'N21 of the synagogue 5— rj diaxovia tov Aöyov] correlate 
contrasting with the dıakoveiv rpar£Zaıs in ver. 2.°° The apostolic working 
was to be separated from the office of overseer ; while, on the other hand, the 
latter was by no means to exclude other Christian work in the measure of 
existing gifts, as the very example of Stephen (vv. 8-10) shows ; comp. 
on Vili. 5. 

Ver. 5. TMavric row rA7Povc] ‘‘pulcher consensus cum obsequio,’’ Bengel. 
The aristocracy of the church was a wer’ evdogiag mAnhovc apioroKparia.® — 
riorewc] is not, with Wetstein, Kuinoel, and others, to be interpreted 
honesty, trustworthiness ; for this qualification was obvious of itself, and is 
here no peculiar characteristic. But the prominent Christian element in 
the nature of Stephen was his being distinguished by fulness of faith 


1 Rothe, de Wette, Thiersch, Kirche im 
apost. Zeitalt. p. 75. 

2 Kirchengesch. I. sec. 25, note 7. 

3 Comp. Holtzm. Judenth. u. Christenth. p. 
618 f. 

4 But the assumption that “the institution 
of the so-called deacons was originally one 
and the same with the presbyterate, and that 
only at a later period it ramified into the dis- 
tinction between the presbyterate in the 
narrower sense and the diaconate”’ (Lange. 
apost. Zeitalt. II. p. 75, after J. H. Böhmer; 
comp. also Lechler, p. 306), is not to be proved 
by xi. 30. See in loc. Ritschl, altkathol. K. 
p. 355 ff., thinks it very probable that the 
authority of the Seven was the first shape of 
the office of presbyter afterwards emerging in 
Jerusalem. So also Holtzmann, /.c. p. 616. 
Similarly Weiss, Dibl. Theol. p. 142, according 
to whom the presbyters stepped into the place 
of the Seven and took upon themtheir duties. 
But the oflice of presbyter was still at that 
time vested in the apostles themselves ; accord- 
ingly, the essential and necessary difference 


of the two functions was from the very first 
the regulative point of view. The presbyterate 
retained the oversight and guidance of the 
diaconate (Phil. i. 1) ; comp. also xi. 30; but 
the latter sprang, by reason of the emerging | 
exigency, from the former, not the converse. 

6 As Leyrer, in Herzog’s Encykl. XV. p. 
313, thinks. The ecclesiastical overseership 
arose out of the higher need and interest of 
the new present, but the synagogal office 
might serve as a model that offered itself his- 
torically. The requirements for the latter 
office pointed merely to “ well-known trust- 
worthy *’ men. 

6 Vitringa ; on the other side Rhenfeld, see 
Wolf, Curae. 

7 Observe, however, that it is not said: 7 
Staxovia THs Tpocevxis Kal ToD Adyou, and there- 
fore it is not to be inferred from our passage, 
with Ahrens (Amt d. Schlüssel, p. 37 f.), that 
by 77’ mpocevxy a part of ‘the office of the 
keys” is meant. See, in opposition to this, 
Diisterdieck in the Stud. w. Krit. 1865, p. 762 f. 

8 Plat. Menex. p. 288 D. 


126 CHAP. VI., 6-9. a 


(comp. xi. 24), on which account the church united in selecting him first. 
— #idırror] At a later period he taught in Samaria, and baptized the 
chamberlain (viii. 5 ff.). Concerning his after life and labours (see, how- 
‘ever, xxi. 8) there are only contradictory legends. — Nıxöiaov] neither the 
founder of the Nicolaitans,! nor the person from whom the Nicolaitans had 
borrowed their name in accordance with his alleged immoral principles ;? 
Thiersch wishes historically to combine the two traditions.* NıroAarrai, Rev. 
li. 6, is an invented Greek name, equivalent to xparouvrec tiv dıdayyv Badadpu 
(ver. 14), according to the derivation of DY ya, perdidit populum.* Of the 
others mentioned nothing further is known. — mpoonAvrov ’Avrıoy.] From 
this it may be inferred, with Heinsius, Gieseler, de Wette, Ewald, and 
others, that only Nicolas had been a proselyte, and all the rest were not; 
for otherwise we could not discern why Luke should have added such a 
special remark of so characteristic a kind only in the case of Nicolas. But 
that there was also a proselyte among those chosen, is an evidence of the 
wisdom of the choice. —’ Avtioyéa] but who dwelt in Jerusalem. — The fact 
that Stephen is named at the head of the Seven finds its explanation in his 
distinguished qualities and historical significance. Comp. Peter at the 
head of the apostles. Chrysostom well remarks on ver. 8: kai Ev roig éxta 
qv Tle MpöKpırog Kal ra mpwreia eiyev' el yap Kal 7 YELpoTOvia Kom, aAA’ Kuwo OvTOS 
&meomäoaro yap mAeiova. Nor is it less historically appropriate that the 
only proselyte among the Seven is, in keeping with the Jewish character of 
the church, named last. 

Ver. 6.° And after they (the apostles) had prayed, they laid their hands on 
them. —xai is the simple copula, whereupon the subject changes without 
carrying out the periodic construction.° Itis otherwise ini. 24. The idea 
that the overseers of the church (comp. on xiii. 3) form the subject, to which 
Hoelemann is inclined, has this against it, that at that time, when the body 
of the apostles still stood at the head of the first church, no other presiding 
body was certainly as yet instituted. The diaconate was the jirst organ- 
ization, called forth by the exigency that in the jirst instance arose.— The 
imposition of hands,’ as a symbol exhibiting the divine communication of 
power and grace, was employed from the time of Moses* as a special theocratic 
consecration to office. So also in the apostolic church, without, however, its 
already consummating admission to any sharply defined order (comp. 1 
Tim. v. 22). The circumstance that the necessary gifts (comp. here vv. 3, 
5) of the person in question were already known to exist? does not exclude 
the special bestowal of official gifts, which was therein contemplated ; see- 
ing that elsewhere, even in the case of those who have the Spirit, there 


1 As, after Iren. Hae. ii. 27, Epiph. Haer. 5 See, on the imposition of hands, Bauer in 
25, Calvin, Grotius, and Lightfoot assumed. the Stud. u. Krif. 1865, p. 343 ff.; Hoelemann 

2 Constitt. ap. vi. 8.3; Clem. Al. Strom. ii. in his neue Bibelstud. 1866, p. 282 fi., where 
D. 177i. p- Ast: also the earlier literature, p. 283, is noted. 

3 See his Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 251 f. ; 6 See Buttm. newt. Gr. p. 116 (E. T. 132). 
comp. generally, Lange, «post. Zeitalt. II. p. ? DT ND Dd, Vitringa, Synag p. 836 ff. 
526 ff.,and Herzog in his Zneykl.X.p.338 f.), & Num. xxvii. 18 ; Deut. xxxiv. 9; Ewald, 
but otherwise historically quite unknown. Alterth. p. 57 f. 


4 See Ewald and Düsterdieck, Z.c. ® Ritschl, altkath. Kirche, p. 387. 


INSTALLING THE SEVEN. 127 


yet ensues a special and higher communication.—Observe, moreover, that 
here also (comp. viii. 17, xiii. 3) the imposition of hands occurs after 
prayer,’ and therefore it was not a mere symbolic accompaniment of prayer* 
without collative import, and perhaps only a ‘‘ ritus ordini et decoro con- 
gruens”’ (Calvin). Certainly its efficacy depended only on God’s bestowal, 
but it was associated with the act representing this bestowal as the medium 
of the divine communication. 

Ver. 7, attaching the train of thought by the simple xai, now describes 
how, after the installing of the Seven, the cause of the gospel continued to 
prosper. ‘* The word of God grew’’—it increased in diffusion.* How could 
the re-established and elevated love and harmony, sustained, in addition 
to the apostles, by upright men who were full of the Holy Spirit and of 
wisdom (ver. 8), fail to serve as the greatest recommendation of the new 
doctrine and church to the inhabitants of the capital, who had always 
before their eyes, in the case of their hierarchs, the curse of party spirit 
and sectarian hatred? Therefore—and what a significant step towards 
victory therein took place !—a great multitude of the priests became obedient 
to the faith, that is, they submitted themselves to the faith in Jesus as the 
Messiah, they became believers; comp. as to izaxoy rioreuc, on Rom. i. 5. 
The better portion of the so numerous (Ezra ii. 36 ff.) priestly class could 
not but, in the light of the Christian theocratic fellowship which was 
developing itself, recognise and feel all the more vividly the decay of the 
old hierarchy. Accordingly, both the weakly attested reading 'Iovdaiov, 
and the conjecture of Casaubon, approved by Beza: xai tov ispéwr, SC. Tevéc, 
are to be entirely rejected ; nor is even Elsner’s view, which Heinsius 
anticipated, and Wolf and Kuinoel followed, to be adopted, viz. that by 
the oyAoc tev iep., the sacerdotes ex plebe, plebeti sacerdotes, YINT DY Din, 
are meant in contradistinction to the theologically learned priests, pysan 
spoon. The text itself is against this view ; for it must at least have run: 
moAA.oL Te iepeic Tov öyAov. Besides, such a distinction of priests is nowhere 
indicated in the N. T., and could not be presumed as known. Compare, 
as analogous to the statement of our passage, John xii. 42. 

Vy. 8, 9. Yet there now came an attack from without, and that against 
that first-named distinguished overseer for the poor, Stephen, who became 
the rpwronäprup.* The new narrative is therefore not introduced abruptly 
(Schwanbeck). — yaäpıroc is, as in iv. 33, to be understood of the divine 
grace, not as Heinrichs, according to ii. 47, would have it taken : gratia, 
quam apud permultos inierat. This must have been definitely conveyed by 
an addition. — duvauewe] power generally, heroism ; not specially : miraculous 
power, as the following &roieı répara x.r.A. expresses a special exercise of 
the generally characteristic yapre and divauic. —rivec tov éx tHe ovvaywyye 
Aey. Aıßepr.] some of those who belonged to the so-called Libertine-synagogue.. 
The number of synagogues in Jerusalem was great, and is estimated by the 


1 Luke has not expressed himself in some Theol. p. 144. 
such way as this: kai émidevtes avtois Tas 3 xii. 24. xix. 20, ete. Comp. the parable of 
xelpas mpoonV&avro. the mustard-seed. Matt. xiii. 31, 32, 

2? This also in opposition to Weiss, Didl. 4 Const. ap. ii. 49. 2 


128 CHAP. VI., 10-12. 


Rabbins,' at the fanciful number 480 (i.e. 4 x 10 x 12). Chrysostom, 
already correctly explains the AcBeprivo:: of ‘Pwyaiwy amerevdepoı. They are 
to be conceived as Jews by birth, who, brought by the Romans, particularly 
under Pompey, as prisoners of war to Rome, were afterward emancipated, and 
had returned home. Many also remained in Rome, where they had settled 
on the other side of the Tiber.” They and their descendants after them 
formed in Jerusalem a synagogue of their own, which was named after the 
class-designation which its originators and possessors brought with them 
from their Roman sojourn in exile, the synagogue of the freedmen (libertin- 
orum). This, the wswal explanation, for which, however, further historical 
proof cannot be adduced, is to be adhered to as correct, both on account 
of the purely Roman name, and because it involves no historical improba- 
bility. Grotius, Vitringa, Wolf, and others understand, as also included 
under it, Jtalians, who as, freedmen had become converts to Judaism. But 
it is not at all known that such persons, and that in large numbers, were 
resident in Jerusalem. The Roman designation stands opposed to the view 
of Lightfoot, that they were Palestinian freedmen, who were in the service 
of Palestinian masters. Others,* suppose that they were Jews, natives of 
Libertum, a (problematical) city or district in proconsular Africa. If there 
was a Libertum,‘* the Jews from it, of whom no historical trace exists, were 
certainly not so numerous in Jerusalem as to form a separate synagogue of 
their own.® —x«ai Kup. kat ’Adee.] Likewise two synagogal communities. 
Calvin, Beza, Bengel, Heumann, and Klos,° were no doubt of opinion that 
by é« ac ovvaywyie . . . kal’ Aciac there is meant only one synagogue, which 
was common to all those who are named. But against this may be urged, 
as regards the words of the passage, the circumstance that r. Aeyouévne only 
suits AvBeprivwr, and as regards matter of fact, the great number of syn- 
agogues in Jerusalem, as well as the circumstance that of the Libertini, 
Cyrenaeans, etc., there was certainly far too large a body in Jerusalem to 
admit of them all forming only one synagogue. In Cyrene, the capital of 
Upper Libya, the fourth part of the inhabitants consisted of Jews,’ and in 
Alexandria two of the five parts into which the city was divided were 
inhabited by them.* Here was also the seat of Jewish-Greek learning, and 
it was natural that those removing to Jerusalem should bring with them in 
some measure this learning of the world without, and prosecute it there in 
their synagogue. Wieseler, p. 63, renders the first kai and indeed, so that 
the Cyrenaeans, Alexandrians, and those of Cilicia and Asia, would be 
designated as a mere part of the so-called Libertine synagogue. But how 
arbitrary, seeing that «ai in the various other instances of its being used 


1 Megill. £.'%3, 4; Ketuvoth f. 105, 1. xara Kup. (Schulthess, de charism. Sp. St. p. 
2 Sueton. Tiber. 36; Tacit. Ann. ii. 85; 162 ff.). See Wetstein, who even considers 
Philo, Leg. ad Cat. p. 1014 C. Außepr. as another form (inflexio) of the name 
3See particularly .Gerdes in the Jfiscell. AcBuor. The Arm. already has Libyorwm. 
Groning. I. 3, p. 529 ff. 6 Exam. emendatt. Valek. in N. T.p. 48. 
4 Suidas: Außeprivor: övona £dvous. 7 Joseph. Antt. xiv. 7. 2, xvi. 6.1; c. Apion. 
5 Conjectures: Außvorivwv, Libyans (Oecu- Ira: 
menius, Lyra, Beza, ed. 1 and 2, Clericus, 8 Joseph. Antt. xiv. 7. 2, xiv. 10.1, xix. 5. 


Gothofredus, Valckenacr), and Aıßivov tov 2; Bell. Jud. ii. 18, 7. 


STEPHEN ARRESTED. 129 


throughout the representation always expresses merely the simple and ! 
The Synagoga Alexandrinorum is also mentioned in the Talmud.! Winer 
and Ewald divide the whole into two communities: (1) Kupyy. and ’ARe£, 
joined with the Libertines ; and (2) the synagogue formed of the Cilician 
and Asiatic Jews. But against this view the above reasons also militate, 
especially the rjc Aeyou£vnc, which only suits Außeprivov. The grammatical 
objection against our view, that the article rév is not repeated before 
Kupyv., and before ’A2ef., is disposed of by the consideration, that those 
belonging to the three synagogues, the Libertine-synagogue, the Cyrenaeans, 
and the Alexandrians are conceived together as one hostile category,” and the 
two following synagogal communities are then likewise conceived as such a 
unity, and represented by the kat tov prefixed. We have thus in our 
passage jive synagogues, to which the ruvéc belonged, — namely, three of 
Roman and African nationality, and two Asiatic. The two categories—the 
former three together, and the latter two together—are represented as the 
two synagogal circles, from which disputants emerged against Stephen. 
To the Cilician synagogue Saul doubtless belonged. — Asia is not to be 
taken otherwise than in ii. 9.—ovfyrovvrec] as disputants, ix. 29. The 
oufnreiv had already begun with the rising up (dvéorycav).* 

Vv. 10, 11. The codia is to be explained, not of the Jewish learning, but 
of the Christian wisdom,® to which the Jewish learning of the opponents 
could not make any resistance.° The rveüua was the rv. äyıov,’ with which 
he was filled, vv. 3, 5. —@] Dative of the instrument. It refers, as respects 
sense, to both preceding nouns, but is grammatically determined according 
to the latter, Matthiae, page 991.—röre] then, namely, after they had 
availed nothing in open disputation against him. ‘‘ Hic agnosce morem 
improborum ; ubi veritate discedunt impares, ad mendacia confugiunt,”’ 
Erasmus. Paraphr. — imeßarov] they instigated, secretly instructed.* — axyxd. 
auev x.7.2.] provisional summary statement of what these men asserted that 
they had heard as the essential contents of the utterances of Stephen in 
question. For their more precisely formulated literal statement, see vv. 
13, 14. 

Vv. 12-14. The assertion of these üroßAyroi? served to direct the public 
opinion against Stephen ; but a legal process was requisite for his complete 
overthrow, and prudence required the consent of the people. Therefore 
they stirred up the people, and the elders of the people and the scribes, etc. 
— owverivpoav] they drew them into the movement with them, stirred up 
them also, Often in Plut., Polyb., etc. —xat ömioravrec] as in iv. 1. The 
subject is still those hostile rww&c. — ovunpr.] they drew along with them, as 
in xix. 29. — udprvpac wevdeic] Consequently, Stephen had not spoken the 


1 Megill. f. 73, 4. 6 Comp. 1 Cor. i. 17 ff., ii. 6 ff. 

2 See Krüger, ad Xen. Anab. ii. 1. 7; Sauppe ? But ro ayio 1s not added ; for “ adversarii 
and Kühner, ad Xen. Mem.i.1.19; Dissen, sentiebant Spiritwm esse in Stephano ; Spiri- 
ad Dem. de cor. p. 373 f. tum sanctum in eo esse non sciebant,”’ Bengel. 

3 Vulg. : ‘* et eorum qui erant.” ® Comp. Appian. i. 74, UmeßAn@noav Kary- 

4 Bernhardy, p. 477 f.; Winer, p. 320 f. (E. yopo. The Latin sudornarunt, or, as the 
T. 444.) Vulg. has it, submiserunt (Suet. Ver. 28). 


5 Luke xxi. 15; and see on Eph. i. 8, 17. ® Joseph. Bell. v. 10.4 ; Plut. 7id. Gr. 8. 


130 CHAP, VI., 13, 14. 


same words, which were then adduced by these witnesses, ver. 14, as heard 
from him. Now, namely, in presence of the Sanhedrim, it concerned them 
to bear witness to the blasphemy alleged to have been heard according to 
the real state of the facts, and in doing so those dvdpec troBAyroi dealt as 
Jalse witnesses. As formerly’ a saying of Jesus was falsified in order to 
make Him appear as a rebel against the theocracy ; so here also some ex- 
pression of Stephen now unknown to us,—wherein the latter probably had 
pointed, and that in the spirit of Jesus himself, to the reformatory influence 
of Christianity leading to the dissolution of the temple-worship and legal 
institutions, and the consummation of it by the Parousia, and had indeed, 
perhaps, quoted the prophecy of the Lord concerning the destruction of 
Jerusalem,—was so perverted, that Stephen now appears as herald of a 
revolution to be accomplished by Jesus, directed against the temple and 
against the law and the institutions of Moses.” Against the view of 
Krause,* that an expression of other, more inconsiderate, Christians was im- 
puted to Stephen, may be urged not only the utter arbitrariness of such a 
supposition, but also the analogy of the procedure against Jesus, which 
very naturally presented itself to the enemies of Stephen as a precedent. 
Heinrichs, after Heumann and Morus, thinks that the uaprupec were in so 
far wevdeic, as they had uttered an expression of Stephen with an evil design, 
in order to destroy him ; so also Sepp. p. 17. But in that case they would 
not have been false, but only malicious witnesses ; not a wevdoc, but a bad 
motive would have been predominant. Baur also and Zeller maintain the 
essential correctness of the assertion, and consequently the incorrectness of 
the narrative, in so far as it speaks of false witnesses. But an antagonism 
to the law, such as is ascribed by the latter to Stephen, would lack all 
internal basis and presupposition in the case of a believing Israelite full of 
wisdom and of the Holy Spirit ;* as regards its true amount, it can only be 
conceived as analogous to the subsequent procedure of Paul, which, as’in 
xviii. 13, xxi. 21, was misrepresented with similar perversity ; nor does the 
defensive address, vii. 44-53, lead further. Nevertheless, Rauch® has 
maintained that Stephen actually made the assertion adduced by the wit- 
nesses, ver. 14, and that these were only false witnesses, in so far as they 
had not themselves heard this expression from the mouth of Stephen, which 
yet was the purport of their statement. This is at variance with the entire 
design and representation, see particularly ver 11. And the utterance 
itself, as the witnesses professed to have heard it, would, at any rate, 


1 Matt. xxvi. 61: John ii. 19. Jerusalem, and the Parousia, etc. But Ste- 


2 Comp. Weiss, b¢d/. Theol. p.148. But that 
Stephen, as Reuss thinks (in Herzog’s Encyk. 
XV. p. 73), preached something which the 
apostles had not previously taught, is all the 
more uncertain an assumption, seeing that 
already in the sayings of Jesus Himself sufü- 
cient materials for the purpose were given. 
Comp. e.g. John iv. 21 ff., the sayings of 
Jesus concerning the Sabbath, concerning the 
Levitical purifications, concerning the mAjpw- 
ats of the law, concerning the destruction of 


phen (6 to mvevpare Séwv, Constitt. ap. viii. 
46. 9) may have expressed himself in a more 
threatening and incisive manner than others, 
and thereby have directed the persecution to 
himself. In so far he was certainly the fore- 
runner of Paul. 

3 Comment. in histor. atque orat. Steph., 
Gott. 1780. 

4 Comp. Baumgarten, p. 125. 

5 In the Stud, u. Krit. 1857, p. 356. 


STEPHEN ACCUSED. 131 


even if used as a veil for a higher meaning, be framed after a manner 
so alien to Israelite piety and so unwise, that it could not be attributed at 
all to Stephen, full as he was of the Spirit. Oecumenius has correctly 
stated the matter: érewd) GAAwc pév hjkovoav, GAAwe dé viv aurol Tpovxüpovv, 
eikörwg Kal Wevdoudprupec avaypdgovtat. — Tov Térov Tov ayiov] the holy place kar’ 
&£oxhv is the temple.'— Ver. 14. 6 Nafwp. ovtoc] is not to be considered as 
part of the utterance of Stephen, but as proceeding from the standpoint of 
the false witnesses who so designate Jesus contemptuously, and blended by 
them with the words of Stephen. And not only isö Nafwp. an expression of 
contempt, but also ouroc? : Jesus, this Nazarene ! — rov rérov tovrov] The false 
witnesses represent the matter, as if Stephen had thus spoken pointing to the 
temple. 

Ver. 15. All the Sanhedrists ® saw the countenance of Stephen angelically 
glorified ; a superhuman, angel-like défa became externally visible to them 
on it (x). So Zuke has conceived and represented it with simple definite- 
ness ; so the serene calm which astonished even the Sanhedrists, and the 
holy joyfulness which was reflected from the heart of the martyr in his 
countenance, have been glorified by the symbolism of Christian legend. 
But it would be arbitrary, with Kuinoel (comp. Grotius and Heinrichs), to 
rationalize the meaning of eidov . . . ayyéAov to this effect: ‘‘Os animi 
tranquillitatem summam referebat, adeo ut eum intuentibus reverentiam 
injiceret ;’’ according to which fhe expression would have to be referred, 
with Neander and de Wette, to a poetically symbolical description, which 
does not correspond with the otherwise simple style of the narrative. The 
phenomenon was certainly ‘‘an extraordinary operation of the Spirit of 
Jesus ;’’* but the form of it is added by tradition, which betrays the point 
of view of the miraculous also by the ravrec. The parallel adduced afresh 
by Olshausen (2 Sam. xiv. 17) is utterly unsuitable, because there the com- 
parison to an angel relates to wisdom, and not to anything external. Nor 
is the analogy of the déga in the face of Moses (2 Cor. iii. 7) suitable, on 
account of the characteristic rpédcwr. ayyé2ov. For Rabbinical analogies, see 
Schoettgen and Wetstein. 


NOTES BY AMERICAN EDITOR. 
(v) A murmuring. Y. 1. 


The first dissension within the Christian Church arose from a natural 
jealousy of two parties, of different language and national manners. Each 
party, wedded to its own customs and ways, was naturally prejudiced some- 
what against the other ; both truly Christian, yet each imperfect and lacking 
in true charity. This trouble was the germ of the future disturbance caused 
by the Judaizing Christians during and after the age of the apostles. The 
same element of discontent and disunion exists still in countries where 


13 Mace. ii. 14. 3 arevigavres eis avtov: ‘‘usitatum est in 
2 vii.40, xix.26; Luke xv. 80; Ast, Zew. judiciis oculos in reum convertere, quum 
Plat.1I. p. 494; Dissen, ad Pind. Nem. ix. expectatur ejus defensio,” Calvin. 
29, p. 492. 4 Baumgarten, p. 130. 


1352 CHAP. VI., NOTES. 


different races, nationalities, and languages prevail, as in our own land, where 
dwell together natives of almost every country in the world. There is need 
for the exercise of enlarged and enlightened charity, for the exhibition of 
Christian wisdom and apostolic tact, and for the cultivation of a spirit of mu- 
tual forbearance and brother-love. 

« There is something very sad in the brief statement contained in the open- 
ing verses of this sixth chapter. It tells us that the curtain had fallen on the 
first act of the church’s history. Hitherto unbroken peace had reigned in the 
church, and a mutual love, which manifested itself in the general community 
of goods. But now we see the fair life interrupted, and the apostle compelled 
by a dissension to make arrangements for governing the community. It is a 
humiliating thought that the first great movement to organize ecclesiastical 
order and discipline was forced upon the apostles by an outburst of human 
passions among believers.’’ (Howson, Acts.) 


(w) Seven men. V. 3. 


Luke does not designate these men deacons. Nor does it appear that any 
one of the seven was ever so called. Philip is spoken of as an evangelist, and 
both he and Stephen were successful preachers. 

‘‘Some of the ancient writers regarded them as the first deacons ; others as 
entirely distinct from them. The general opinion at present is that this order 
arose from the institution of the Seven, but by a gradual extension of the 
sphere of duty at first assigned to them.’’ (Hackett.) Various reasons have 
been imagined why seven were selected—that this was the sacred number among 
the Jews ; that there were seven thousand believers at the time—one for each 
thousand ; that there were seven congregations in Jerusalem ; that it referred 
to the supposed existence of seven archangels ; that it was a contrast to the 
twelve apostles, or a reference to the days of the week. But all such supposi- 
tions are arbitrary and vain, Lightfoot observes: “Let him that hath confi- 
dence enough pretend to assign a sufficient reason.’’ The special exigency of 
the time required a particular work, and for this men were selected by the 
church and appointed by the apostles. The office of a deacon is scriptural, 
and his qualifications and duties are divinely specified. 


(x) The face of an angel. V. 15. 


Our author, speaking of the phenomenon, ascribes it to the “operation of 
the Spirit of Jesus, but the form of it is added by tradition.” The narrative 
plainly implies that the appearance was supernatural, probably something 
similar to the radiance on the face of Moses, upon which the children of 
Israel could not look. The comparison with the angel is not intended to 
give any definite idea of his actual appearance, as we know nothing of the 
aspect of an angel’s conntenance ; but it is used as a strong figure to suggest 
the idea of something superhuman and celestial. 

Augustine thus beautifully writes of the martyr’s transfigured face: “O 
lamb, foremost of the flock of Christ, fighting in the midst of wolves, following 
after the Lord, but still at a distance from him, and already the angel’s friend ! 
Yes, how clearly was he the angel’s friend, who, while in the very midst of the 
wolves, still seemed like an angel ; for so transfigured was he by the rays of 
the Sun of Righteousness, that even to his enemies he seemed a being not of 
this world.”’ 


CRITICAL REMARKS. 133 


OHAPTER. VI, 


Ver. 1. dpa is wanting inABCN, min. Vulg. Cant. Germ. Bed. Deleted by 
Lachm. Butif not genuine, it would hardly have been added, as it was so little 
necessary for the sense that, on the contrary, the question expressed in a 
shorter and more precise form appears to be more suitable to the standpoint 
and the temper of the high priest. — Ver. 3. t7v yyv] The article is wanting in 
Elz. Scholz, against far preponderant attestation. A copyist’s error. Restored 
by Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. Born. — Ver. 5. aito doüvar) doivar aire is decidedly 
attested ; so Lachm. Tisch. Born. — Ver. 7. dovAevowor] Tisch. reads dovdAevcov- 
ow, in accordance, no doubt, with A C D, vss. Ir., but it is a mechanical rep- 
etition from ver. 6. — Ver. 11. r7v yjv Aiyixtov] ABC D* (which has é¢’ 6A75 
THiS Aly.) 8, 81, vss. have t7v Alyvrrov. Recommended by Griesb. and adopted 
by Lachm. But how easily might THN be passed over after THN! and then 
the change AiyvrrON became necessary. — Ver. 12. Instead of oira, oıria is to 
be received with Lachm. Tisch. Born,!— &v Aiyirtw] Lachm. Tisch. read eis 
Aiyvrrov, following A BC EN, 40. &v Aiy. is an explanatory supplement to 
övra. — Ver. 14. After ovyy&v. Elz, has airoi, in opposition to witnesses of 
some importance (also NS), although it is defended by Born. A prevalent addi- 
tion. — Ver. 15. dé] A C E 8, 15, 18, vss. have xal xaré3y, which Griesb. has 
recommended, Rinck preferred, and Lachm, and Tisch. have adopted. D, 40, 
Syr. p. Cant. have no conjunction at all ; so Born., but from the LXX. Deut. 
x. 22; «ai? kar. is to be preferred as best attested. — Ver. 16. 6] Elz. reads 6, 
against decisive testimony. Mistaking the attraction. ——7od Yvyéu] Lachm. 
reads rod év 2., according to A EN** min, Copt. Syr. p. Tol. BC & min. 
Sahid. Arm. have merely &v =. An alteration, because this Lvyéu was appre- 
hended, like the preceding, as the name of a town, and the parallel with Gen. 
xxxill. 19 was not recognized. — Ver. 17. ouoAöyncoev] So Tisch. Lachm. But 
Elz. and Scholz have duocev, against ABC N, 15, 36, and some vss. A more 
precisely defining gloss from the LXX. instead of which D E have érnyyeiAaro 
(so Born.). —Ver. 18. After érepos Lachm. has Er’ Aiyvrrov, according to AB C 
N, min. and several vss. An exegetical addition from the LXX. — Ver. 20. 
After marpös Elz. has airod. See on ver. 14. — Ver. 21. exrehevra dt adzor] 
Lachm. Born. read &xredevros 62 adroö, according to ABCDNmin. A correc- 
tion in point of style. — Ver. 22. racy oodia] A C EN, vss, Or. (twice) Bas. 
Theodoret have év racy 006. So Tisch. D* has rüoav riv oodiav. So Born. 
Interpretations of the Itecepta, in favour of which is also the reading wdons 
cogias in B, which is a copyist’s error. — év before épy. (Elz. Scholz) is as de- 
eidedly condemned by external testimonies as the aurov after Zpyoıs, omitted 
in Elz., is attested. — Ver. 26 curv7#2ucev] BCDN, min. and some vss. have 
ovvnAkacev or ovryAdaccev, Valck. has preferred the former, Griesb. recom- 


1 How often otriov is exchanged in mss. ad Iier. iii. 11; Heind. ad Plat. Phaed. p. 
with oiros and oirov, may beseeninFrotscher, 64D; Krüger, ad Xen. Anab. vii. 1. 33. 


134 CHAP, VII. 


mended the latter, and Lachm. Born. (comp. also Fritzsche, de conform. Lachm. 
p. 31) adopted it. Gloss on the margin for the explanation of the original 
ovvnAacev .. . eS eipyvmv. On its reception into the text, the eis eip., separated 
from ovvjA. by aitovs, was retained. — Ver. 27. é¢’ jus] ABC HR, min, 
Theophyl. have 26’ 7udv. So Tisch. and Lachm. From LXX. Ex. ii. 14. — Ver. 
30. xupiov] is to be deleted, with Lachm. and Tisch., following A B C8, Copt. 
Sahid. Vulg. A current addition to ayye?os generally, and here specially oc- 
casioned by the LXX. Ex. iii. 2. — Instead of gAo)i zvpos, Tisch. has rupi gAoyés, 
after A C E, min. Syr. Vulg. The reading similarly varies in the LXX., and 
as the witnesses at our passage are divided, we cannot come to any decision. 
— Ver. 31. éatuage] So Griesb. Scholz, Tisch. Born. But Elz. and Lachm. 
have &davuacev. Both have considerable attestation. But the suitableness of 
the relative imperfect was, as often elsewhere, not duly apprehended. — After 
xupiov Elz, Scholz have pos airév, which, however, Lachm. and Tisch, have 
deleted, following ABS, min. Copt. Arm. Syr. p. An exegetical amplification, 
instead of which D, after karav., continues by: 6 küp. eimev ara Aéywov. — Ver. 
32. Lachmann’s reading: 6 deös ’Adpauu x. ’loaak x. ’Iakw3 (so also Tisch.), has 
indeed considerable attestation, but it is an adaptation to iii. 13. — Ver. 33. 
év ©] Lachm. Tisch. read é¢’ 4, which is to be preferred on account of pre- 
ponderant attestation by AB C D** (D* has od, so Born.) N; év o is from the 
LXX. — Ver. 34. aroore?o] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read aroorei)o, which is so 
decidedly attested by AB CD. Chrys., and by the transcriber’s error arooriAw 
in E and &, that it cannot be considered as an alteration after the LXX. Ex, 
iii. 10. The Recepta is a mistaken emendation. — Ver. 35, Instead of dméoresAer, 
üneoraAkev is to be read, with Lachm. Tisch. Born., according to decisive evi- 
dence, — év yerpi] Lachm. Tisch. Born., read ovv xeıpi, which is so decidedly 
attested, and might so easily give place to the current év yerp’, that it must be 
preferred. — Ver. 36. y7] Lachm. reads 77, according to BC, min. Sahid. Cant, 
A transcriber’s error. The originality of y7 is supported also by the’ Alyimrov 
(instead of Aiyörrw) adopted by Elz, and Born. after D, which, however, has 
preponderating testimony against it.— Ver. 37. After Oeös Elz. has tudv, 
against decisive testimony. «vpoS and aitod akovosode are also to be rejected 
(Lachm. and Tisch. have deleted both), as important authorities are against 
them, and as their insertion after the LXX. and iii. 22 is more natural than 
their omission. — Ver. 39, rais kapd.] Lachm. reads év zais-xapd., according to 
ABCR8. This is evidently an explanatory reading. On the other hand, r7 
xapdia (in H, min. and some vss, Chrys. Oec. Theoph.), preferred by Rinck and 
Tisch., would unhesitatingly be declared genuine, were it not that almost all 
the uncials and vss support the plural. — Ver. 43. öuov] is wanting in BD, 
min, vss. Or. Ir. Philast. Rightly erased by Lachm. and Tisch. From the 
LXX. — 'Peoav] a great variety in the orthography. Lachm. and Tisch. have 
‘Pegdv, according to A C E, But Elz. Scholz have ‘Pewdiv ; Born, "Peugau (D, 
Vulg. Ir.) ; B has ‘Poudd ; N*, "Poudav ; N**, ‘Pardav. — Ver. 44. The usual &v 
before rois, which Lachm. and Tisch. have deleted (after A B C D** HN, min, 
Chrys. and some vss.), is an explanatory addition. — Ver. 46. 026] BDH *, 
Cant. have o/kw. Adopted by Lachm. and Born. But in accordance with ver, 
48 it appeared contradictory to the idea of Stephen, to designate the temple as 
the dwelling of God; and hence the alteration.— Ver. 48. After yeıpor. Elz. 
has vaois, against ABC DEN, min. and most vss. An exegetical addition. 
Comp. xvii. 24. — Ver. 51. 77 xapdia] Lachm. and Born. read xapdiaıs. But the 


STEPHEN’S DEFENCE. 135 
plural, which is found partly with and partly without the article inACDN, 
min, and several vss. Chrys. Jer., was occasioned by the plural of the subject, 
B has «apdias, which, without being a transcriber’s error (in opposition to 
Buttm. neutest. Gr. p.148 [E. T. 170]), may be either singular or plural, and 
therefore is of no weight for either reading. — Ver. 52. yeyévyofe] The reading 
’yeveoße in Lachm, Tisch. Born. is decidedly attested, and therefore to be 
adopted, 


Ver. 1. The high priest interrupts the silent gazing of the Sanhedrists 
on Stephen, as he stood with glorified countenance, and demands of him 
an explanation of the charge just brought against him.—Zs then this, which 
the witnesses have just asserted, so? With e (see oni. 6; Luke xiii. 23) 
the question in the mouth of the high priest has something ensnaring about 
it. On the apa, used with interrogative particles as referring to the cir- 
cumstances of the case—here, of the discussion—see Klotz. 

Vv. 2-53. On the speech of Stephen.”—This speech bears in its contents and 
tone the impress of its being original. For the long and somewhat. prolix 
historical narrative, vv. 2-47, in which the rhetorical character remains so 
much in the background, and even the apologetic element is discernible 
throughout only indirectly, cannot—so peculiar and apparently even ir- 
relevant to the situation is much of its contents *—be merely put into the 
mouth of Stephen, but must in its characteristic nature and course have come 
from his own mouth. If it were sketched after mere tradition or acquired 
information, or from a quite independent ideal point of view, then either 
the historical part would be placed in more direct relation to the points of 
the charge and brought into rhetorical relief, or the whole plan would 
shape itself otherwise in keeping with the question put in ver. 1; the 
striking power and boldness of speech, which only break forth in the 
smallest portion (vv. 48-53), would be more diffused over the whole, and 
the historical mistakes—which have nothing surprising in them in the case 
of a discourse delivered on the spur of the moment—would hardly occur. 
—But how is the authentic reproduction of the discourse, which must in the 
main be assumed, to be explained? Certainly not by supposing that the 
whole was, either in its main points (Krause, Heinrichs) or even verbally 
(Kuinoel), taken down in the place of meeting by some person unknown.‘ 
It is extremely arbitrary to carry back such shorthand-writing to the pub- 
lie life of those times. The most direct solution would no doubt be given, 
if we could assume notes of the speech made by the speaker himself, and 
preserved. But as this is not here to be thought of, in accordance with the 
whole spirit of the apostolic age and with vi. 12, it only remains as the 


ı Ad Devar. p. 177; Nägelsb. on the Ziad, orat., Marb. 1849. Comp. his Kirche im 


p. 11, ed. 3. 

2 See Krause, Comm. in hist. et orat. Steph., 
Gott. 1786; Baur, de orat. hab. a Steph. con- 
silio, Tub. 1829, and his Paulus, p. 42 ff. ; 
Luger, üb. Zweck, Inhalt u. Eigenthiimlichk. 
der Rede des Steph., Lübeck 1838: Lange in 
the Stud. u. Krit. 1836, p. 725 ff., and apost. 
Zeitalt. If. p. 84 fi. ; Thiersch, de Stephani 


apost. Zeitalt. p. 85 ff.; Rauch in the Stud. w. 
Krit. 1857, p. 352 fl. ; F. Nitzsch in the same, 
1860, p. 479 ff. ; Senn in the Zvang. Zeitschr. 
JS. Prot. u. Kirche, 1859, p. 311 ff. 

3 Comp. Calvin: ‘ Stephani responsio prima 
specie absurda et inepta videri posset.”’ 

4 Riehm, de fontib. Act. ap. p. 195 f., con- 
jectures: by Saul. 


136 CHAP. WEL FA 


most natural expedient: to consider the active memory of an ear-witness, or 
even several, vividly on the stretch, and quickened even by the purpose of placing 
it on record, as the authentic source ; so that, immediately after the tragical 
termination of the judicial procedure, what was heard with the deepest 
sympathy and eagerness was noted down from fresh recollection, and after- 
wards the record was spread abroad by copies, and was in its substantial 
tenor adopted by Luke. The purely historical character of the contents, 
and the steady chronological course of the greater part of the speech, re- 
move any improbability of its being with sufficient faithfulness taken up 
by the memory. As regards the person of the reporter, no definite conject- 
ures are to be ventured on;' and only this much is to be assumed as prob- 
able, that he was no hostile listener, but a Christian, perhaps a secret Chris- 
tian in the Sanhedrim itself,—a view favoured by the diffusion, which we 
must assume, of the record, and more especially by the circumstance, that 
vv. 54-60 forms one whole with the reproduction of the speech interrupted 
at ver. 53, and has doubtless proceeded from the same authentic source. 
With this view even the historical errors in the speech do not conflict ; with 
regard to which, however,—especially as they are based in part on tradi- 
tions not found in the O. T.,—it must remain undetermined how far they 
are attributable to the speaker himself or to the reporter. At all events, 
these historical mistakes of the speech form a strong proof in what an un- 
altered form, with respect to its historical data, the speech has been pre- 
served from the time of its issuing from the hands that first noted it down. 
—From this view it is likewise evident in what sense we are to understand 
its originality, namely, not as throughout a verbal reproduction, but as cor- 
rect in substance, and verbal only so far, as—setting aside the literary share, 
not to be more precisely determined, which Luke himself had in putting it 
into its present shape—it was possible and natural for an intentional exer- 
tion of the memory to retain not only the style and tone of the discourse 
on the whole, but also in many particulars the verbal expression. Defini- 
tions of a more precise character cannot psychologically be given. Accord- 
ing to Baur and Zeller the speech is a later composition, ‘‘ at the founda- 
tion of which, historically considered, there is hardly more than an indefi- 
nite recollection of the general contents of what was said by Stephen, and 
perhaps even only of his principles and mode of thought ;’’ the exact recol- 
lection of the speech and its preservation are inconceivable ; the artificial 
plan, closely accordant with its theme, betrays a premeditated elaboration ; 
the author of the Acts unfolds in it his own view of the relation of the 
Jews to Christianity ; the discussion before the Sanhedrim itself is histori- 
cally improbable, etc. ; Stephen is ‘‘the Jerusalem type of the Apostle of 
the Gentiles.’’? Bruno Bauer has gone to the extreme of frivolous criticism : 
“ The speech is fabricated, as is the whole framework of circumstances in 
which it occurs, and the fate of Stephen.”’ 


Interpreters, moreover, are much divided in their views concerning the 


1 Olshausen, e g., refers to vi. 7; Luger and 2See in opposition to Baur, Schnecken- 
Baumgarten to the intervention of Saul. burger in the Stud. u. Krit. 1855, p. 527 X. 


STEPHEN’S DEFENCE. 137 


relation of the contents to the points of complaint contained in vi. 18, 14. 
Among the older interpreters—the most of whom, such as Augustine, Beza, 
and Calvin, have recourse to merely incidental references, without any 
attempt to enter into and grasp the unity of the speech—the opinion of 
Grotius is to be noted: that Stephen wished indirectly, in a historical 
way, to show that the favour of God is not bound to any place, and that 
the Jews had no advantage over those who were not Jews, in order thereby 
to justify his prediction concerning the destruction of the temple and the 
call of the Gentiles.’ But the very supposition, that the teaching of the 
call of the Gentiles was the one point of accusation against Stephen, is arbi- 
trary ; and the historical proofs adduced would have been very ill-chosen 
by him, seeing that in his review of history it is always this very Jewish 
people that appears as distinguished by God. The error, so often com- 
mitted, of inserting between the lines the main thoughts as indirectly indi- 
cated, vitiates the opinion of Heinrichs, who makes Stephen give a defence 
of his conversion to Christ as the true Messiah expected by the fathers; as 
well as the view of Kuinoel, that Stephen wished to prove that the Mosaic 
ceremonial institutions, although they were divine, yet did not make a man 
acceptable to God ; that, on the contrary, without a moral conversion of 
the people, the destruction of the temple was to be expected. Olshausen 
stands in a closer and more direct relation to the matter, when he holds 
that Stephen narrates the history of the O. T. somuch at length, just to show the 
Jews that he believed in it, and thus to induce them, through their love for the 
national history, to listen with calm attention. The nature of the history itself 
Jitted it to form a mirror to his hearers, and particularly to bring home to their 
minds the circumstance that the Jewish people, in all stages of their development 
and of the divine revelation, had resisted the Spirit of God, and that, conse- 
quently, it was not astonishing that they should now show themselves once more 
disobedient. Yet Olshausen himself does not profess to look upon this 
reference of the speech as “with definite purpose aimed at.’ In a more 
exact and thorough manner, Baur, whom Zeller in substance follows, has 
laid down as the leading thought : “ Great and extraordinary as were the 
benefits which God from the beginning imparted to the people, equally ungrateful 
in return and antagonistic to the divine designs was from the first the disposition 
of that people.”” In this case, however, as Zeller thinks, there is brought 
into chief prominence the reference to the temple in respect to the charges raised, 
and that in such a way that the very building of the temple itself was meant « 
to be presented as a proof of the perversity of the people,—a point of view 
which is foreign to Stephen, and arbitrarily forced on his words, as it would 
indeed in itself be unholy and impious.* With reason, Luger, who yet goes 
too far inthe references of details, Thiersch, Baumgarten, and F. Nitzsch 
have adhered to the historical standpoint given in vi. 13, 14, and kept 
strictly in view the apologetic aim of the speech ;* along with which, how- 


1 Comp. Schneckenburger, p. 184, who con- per mali fuistis,’ etc. 
siders the speech, as respects the chief object 395Sam: ‘vilnis's 1 Kinss ws 5! yi, 1271 
aimed at, as a preparation for xxviii. 25 ff. Chron. xviii. 12; comp. on vy. 49, 59. 


2 Comp. already Bengel : ‘‘ Vos autem sem- 4 Comp. also de Wette, 


133 CHAP VL. Sl: 


ever, Thiersch and Baumgarten not without manifold caprice exaggerate, 
in the histories brought forward by Stephen, the typical reference and 
allegorical application of them—by which they were to serve as amirror to 
the present—as designed by him,’ as is also done in the Erlang. Zeitschr. 
1859, p. 311 ff. Rauch is of opinion that the speech is directed against the 
meritoriousness of the temple-worship and of the works of the law, inasmuch as 
it lays stress, on the contrary, upon God’s free and unmerited grace and elec- 
tion ; a similar view was already held by Calvin ; but to this there remains 
the decisive counter-argument, that the assumed point, the non-meritorious 
nature of grace and election, is not at all expressly brought out by Stephen 
or subjected to more special discussion. Moreover, Rauch starts from the 
supposition that the assertion of the witnesses in vi. 14 was ¢rwe,? inasmuch 
as Stephen had actually said what was adduced at vi. 14.—But if the asser- 
tion in vi. 14 is not adduced otherwise than as really false testimony, then 
it is also certain that the speaker must have the design of exposing the 
groundlessness of the charges brought against him, and the true reason for which 
he was persecuted. And the latter was to the martyr the chief point, so that 
his defence throughout does not keep the apologetic line, but has an offensive 
character,’ at first indirectly and calmly, and then directly and vehement- 
ly ; the proof that the whole blame lay on the side of his judges was to him 
the chief point even for his own justification. Accordingly, the proper 
theme is to be found in vv. 51, 52, and the contents and course of the 
speech may be indicated somewhat as follows: J stand here accused and per- 
secuted, not because I am a blasphemer of the law and of the temple, but in conse- 
quence of that spirit of resistance to God and His messengers, which you, 
according to the testimony of history, have received from your fathers and con- 
tinue to exhibit. Thus, it is not my fault, but your fault. To carry out this 


1 Thus, for example, according to Thiersch, 
even in the very command of God to Abraham 
to migrate, ver. 2 ff., there is assumed to be 
involved the application: ‘To us also, to 
whom God in Christ has appeared, there has 
been a command to go out from our kindred.” 
In ver. 7, Stephen, it is affirmed, wishes to in- 
dicate : So will the race of oppressors, before 
whom he stood, end like Pharaoh and his 
host, and the liberated church will then cele- 
brate its new independent worship. In the 
envy of Joseph’s brethren, etc. (ver. 9 ff.), it 
is indicated that Christ also was from envy 
delivered up to the Gentiles, and for that God 
had destined Him to be a Saviour and King of 
the Gentiles. The famine (ver. 11) signifies 
the affliction and spiritual famine of the hos- 
tile Jews, who, however, would at length 
(ver. 13), after the conversion of the Gentiles, 
acknowledge Him whom they had rejected. 
Moses’ birth at the period of the severest op- 
pression, points to the birth of Christ at the 
period of the census. Moses’ second appear- 
ance points to the (in the N. T. not elsewhere 


occurring) second appearance of Christ, which 
would have as its consequence the restora- 
tion of the Jews. Aaron is the type of the 
high priest in the judgment hall, etc. — Ac- 
cording to Luger, the speech has the three 
main thoughts: (1) That the law is nota 
thing rounded off in itself, but something 
added to the promise, and bearing even in it- 
self a new promise; (2) That the temple ia 
not exclusively the holy place, but only stands 
in the rank of holy places, by which a per- 
fecting of the temple is prefigured; (3) That 
from the rejection of Jesus no argument can 
be derived against him (Stephen), as, indeed, 
the ambassadors of God in all stages of reve- 
lation had been reviled. These three main 
thoughts are not treated one after the other, 
but one within the other, on the thread of 
sacred history ; hence the form of repetition 
very often occurs in the recital (vv. 4, 5, 7, 13, 
14, 18, 26, etc.). 

2 See, against this, on vi. 13. 

> Comp. the appropriate remarks of F, 
Nitzsch. 


STEPHEN’S DEFENCE. 139 
view more in detail, Stephen (1) first of all lets history speak, and that with 
all the calmness and circumstantiality by which he might still have won 
the assembly to reflection.’ He commences with the divine guidance of the 
common ancestor, and comes to the patriarchs ; but even in their case that 
refractoriness was apparent through the envy toward Joseph, who yet was 
destined to be the-deliverer of the family. But, at special length, in 
accordance with the aim of his defence, he is cbliged to dwell upon Moses, 
in whose history, very specially and repeatedly, that ungodly resistance 
and rejection appeared,’ although he was the mediator of God for the de- 
liverance of His people, the type of the Messiah, and the receiver of the 
living oracles of the law. Stephen then passes from the tabernacle to the 
temple prayed for by David and built by Solomon (ver. 44 ff.). But hardly 
has he in this case indicated the mode of regarding it at variance with the 
prophet Isaiah, which was fostered by the priests and the hierarchy (vv. 
48-50), than (2) there now breaks forth a most direct attach, no longer to be 
restrained, upon his hostile judges (ver. 51 ff.), and that with a bold 
reproach, the thought of which had already sufficiently glanced out from 
the previous historical representation, and now receives merely its most un- 
veiled expression.* This sudden outbreak, as with the zeal of an ancient 
prophet, makes the unrighteous judges angry ; whereupon Stephen breaks 
off in the mid-current of his speech,* and is silent, while, gazing stedfastly 
heavenwards to the glory of God, he commits his cause to Him whom he 
sees standing at the right hand of God. ; 

Very different judgments have been formed concerning the value of the 
speech, according as its relation to its apologetic task has been recognised 
and appreciated. Even Erasmus (ad ver. 51) gave it as his opinion, that 
there were many things in it ‘‘ quae non ita multum pertinere videantur ad 
id quod instituit.’? We, in saying so, points to the interruption after ver. 
53. Recently Schwanbeck, p. 251, has scornfully condemned it as “a 
compendium of Jewish history forced into adaptation to a rhetorical pur- 
pose, replete with the most trifling controversies which Jewish scholasti- 
cism ever invented,’’ Baur, on the other hand, has with justice acknowl- 
edged the aptness, strikingness, and profound pertinence of the discourse, 
as opposed to the hostile accusations,—a praise which, doubtless, is in- 
tended merely for the alleged later composer. Ewald correctly character- 
izes the speech as complete in its kind; and F. Nitzsch has thoroughly 





1The more fully, and without confining 
himself to what was directly necessary for 
his aim, Stephen expatiates in his historical 


not carried the history farther than to the 
time of Solomon, Vv. 51, 52 include in them- 
selves the whole tragic summary of the later 


representation, the more might he, on account 
of the national love for the sacred history, 
and in accordance with O. T. examples (Ex. 
xx. 5 ff. ; Deut. xxiii. 2 ff.), expect the eager 
and concentrated interest of his hearers, and 
perhaps even hope for a calming and clearing 
of their judgment. 

2 Ver. 27 f., ver. 39 ff. 

3 We may not ask wherefore Stephen has 


history. 

4 What Stephen would still have said or left 
unsaid, if he had spoken further, cannot be 
ascertained. But the speech is broken of; 
with ver. 53 he had just entered on a new 
stream of reproaches. And certainly he would 
still have added a prophetic threatening of 
punishment, as well as possibly, also, the 
summons to repentance. 


140 CHAP. VII, 2-4. 


and clearly done justice to its merits. It is peculiarly important as the 
only detailed speech which has been preserved from one not an apostle, 
and in this respect also it is a ‘‘documentum Spiritus pretiosum,”’ 
Bengel (y). 

As regards the language in which Stephen spoke, even if he were a Hel- 
lenist, which must be left undecided, this forms no reason why he should 
not, as a Jew, have spoken in Hebrew before the supreme council. Nor 
does the partial dependence on the LXX. justify us in inferring that the 
speech was delivered in Greek; it is sufficient to set down this phenome- 
non to the account of the Greek translation of what was spoken in Hebrew, 
whether the source from which Luke drew was still Hebrew or already 
Greek. 

Vv. 2, 3. Brethren and respectively (kai) fathers. The former (kinsmen, 
D'S) refers to all present ; the latter,’ to the Sanhedrists exclusively. Comp. 
xxii. 1.— 6 Oeöc race dögnc] God, who has the glory. And this défa (M22), 
as it stands in significant relation to ©0907, must be understood as outward 
majesty, the brightness in which Jehovah, as the only true God, visibly mani- 
fests Himself.*?— Haran, |, LXX. Xappav, with the Greeks * and Romans, * 
Kappa and Carrhae, was a very ancient city in northern Mesopotamia.° 
The theophany here meant is most distinctly indicated by ver. 3 as that 
narrated -in Gen. xii. 1. But this occurred when Abraham had already 
departed from Ur to Haran (Gen. xi. 31) ; accordingly not: xpiv 7 karoıkjoar 
This discrepancy ° is not to be set at rest by the usual 
assumption that Stephen here follows a tradition probabiy derived from 
Gen. xv. 7,’ that Abraham had already had a divine vision at Ur, to which 
Stephen refers, while in Gen. xii. there is recorded that which afterwards 
happened at Haran. For the verbal quotation, ver. 3, admits of no other 
historical reference than to Gen. xii. 1. Stephen has thus, according to 
the text, erroneously (z) —speaking off-hand in the hurry of the moment, 
how easily might he do so !—transferred the theophany that happened to 
Abraham at Haran to an earlier period, that of his abode in Ur, full of the 
thought that God even in the earliest times undertook the guidance of the 
people afterwards so refractory! This is simply to be admitted (Grotius, 
“Spiritus sanctus apostolos et evangelistas confirmavit in doctrina evan- 
gelica; in ceteris rebus, si Hieronymo credimus, ut hominibus, reliquit 
quae sunt hominum ’’), and not to be evaded by having recourse * to an 


avrov Ev Xappav. 


1 Comp. the Latin Patres and the Hebrew 
as in respectful address to kings, priests, 
prophets, and teachers; Lightfoot, ad Mare. 
p. 654. 

2 Comp. ver. 55; Ex. xxiv. 16; Isa. vi. 3; 
Ps. xxiv. 7, xxix. 3; and on] Cor. ii. 8. 

3 Herodian. iv. 13. 7; Ptol. v. 18; Strab. 
xvi. 1, p, 747. 

4 “ Miserando funere Crassus Assyrias Latio 
maculavit sanguine Carrhas,” Lucan. i. 104; 
comp. Dio Cass. xl. 25; Ammian. Marc. 
Xxiil. 3. [Zrak. XI. 291 ff, 

§ See Mannert, Geogr. Y. 2, p. 280 ff. ; Ritter, 


6 Ewald explains the many deviations in 
this speech from the ordinary Pentateuch, by 
the supposition that the speaker followed a 
later text-book, then much used in the schools 
of learning, which had contained such peculi- 
arities. This is possible, but cannot be other- 
wise shown to be the case; nor can it be 
shown how the deviations came into the sup- 
posed text-book. 

7 Comp. Neh. ix.%; Philo, de Adv. II. pp. 
11,16, ed. Mang.; Joseph. Anti. i. 7. 1; see 
Krause, /.c. p. 11. 

8 See Luger after Beza, Calvin, and others. 


HISTORY OF PATRIARCHS, 141 


anticipation in Gen. xi. 31, according to which the vision contained in xii. 
1 is supposed to have preceded the departure from Ur (a'); or, by what 
professes to be a more profound entering into the meaning, to the arbitrary 
assumption ‘‘ that Abraham took an independent share in the transmigra- 
tion of the children of Terah from Ur to Haran,’’' to which primordial 
hidden beginning of the call of Abraham the speaker goes back. — év rq 
Meooror.] for the land of Ur* was situated in northern Mesopotamia, which 
the Chaldeans inhabited ; but is not to be identified with that Ur, which 
Ammianus Marc. xxv. 8, mentions as castellum Persicum, whose situation 
must be conceived as farther south than Haran.*— xpiv 7] see on Matt. i. 
18. — fy av co dei£o] quameunque tibi monstravero. ‘*Nou norat Abram, 
quae terra foret,’’ Heb. xi. 8, Bengel. 

Ver. 4. Tore] after he had received this command. — usta rd arofaveiv tov 
rar&pa avtov| Abraham was born to his father Terah when he was 70 years 
of age; and the whole life of Terah amounted to 205 years. Now, as 
Abraham was 75 years old when he went from Haran,’ it follows that 
Terah, after this departure of his son, lived 60 years (B'). Once more, there- 
fore, we encounter a deviation from the biblical narrative, which is found 
also in Philo, de migr. Abr. p. 415, and hence probably rests on a tradition, 
which arose for the credit of the filial piety of Abraham, who had not 
migrated before his father’s death. The circumstance that the death of 
Terah is narrated at Gen. xi. 32, proleptically, comp. xii. 4, before the 
migration, does not alter the state of matters historically, and cannot, with 
an inviolable belief in inspiration, at all justify the expedient of Baumgar- 
ten, p. 134.° The various attempts at reconciliation are to be rejected as 
arbitrarily forced: e.g. the proposal, Knatchbull, Cappellus, Bochart, 
Whiston, to insert at Gen. xi. 32, instead of 205, according to the Samaritan 
text 145, but even the latter is corrupted, as Gen. xi. 32 was not under- 
stood proleptically, and therefore it was thought necessary to correct it ; ® 
or the ingenious refinement which, after Augustine, particularly Chladenius, 
Loescher, Wolf, Bengel, and several older interpreters have defended, 
that wet@xicev is to be understood, not of the transferring generally, but of 
the giving quiet and abiding possession, to which Abraham only attained 
after the death of his father. More recently ® it has been assumed that 
Stephen here follows the tradition ° that Abraham left Canaan after the 
spiritual death of his father, i.e. after his falling away into idolatry—this, 


1 Baumgarten, p. 134. 

2DIWD VIN, Gen. xi. 28. 

3 See, after Tuch and Knobel on Genesis, 
Arnold in Herzog's Encykl. XVI. p. 735. 

4 Gen. xi. 26, 32, xii. 4; Joseph. Anft.i. 7.1. 

5 That the narrative of the death of Terah, 
Gen. Z.c., would indicate that for the com. 
mencement of the new relation of God to men 
Abraham alone, and not in connection with 
his father, comes into account. Thus cer- 
tainly all tallies. 

® Naively enough, Knatchbull, p. 47. was 
of opinion that, if this alteration of the He- 


brew text could not be admitted, it was better 
“cum Scaligero nodum hune solvendum re- 
linquere, dum Elias venerit.”” According to 
Beelen in loc., Abraham need not have been 
the jirst-born of Terah, in spite of Gen. xi. 
26, 27. 

7 De conciliat. Mosis et Steph. circa annos 
Abr., Viteb. 1710, 

® Michaelis, Krause, Kuinoel, Luger, Ols- 
hausen. 

® Lightf. in doc.; Michael. de chronol. Mos. 
post diluv. sec. 15. 


142 CHAP. VII, 5-13. 


at least, was intended to protect the patriarch from the suspicion of having 
violated his filial duty !— which opinion Michaelis incorrectly ascribes also 
to Philo. According to this view, arodaveiv would have to be understood 
spiritually, which the context does not in the least degree warrant, and 
which no one would hit upon, if it were not considered a necessity that no 
deviation from Genesis /.c. should be admitted. — nerorıcev] namely, God. 
Rapid change of the subject ; comp. on vi. 6. — eic jv tpeic viv karoık.] i.€. 
into which ye having moved now dwell init. A well-known brachylogy by 
combining the conception of motion with that of rest.’ The eic 7 calls 
to mind the immigration of the nation (which is represented by ieic) from 
Egypt. 

Ver. 5. KAnpovoyia, nm, hereditary possession. Heb. xi. 8. — Biya modöc] * 
On the subject-matter, comp. Heb. xi. 9.— Kai ixnyyeidato] Gen. xiii. 15. 
Kai is the copula. He gave not... . and promised, the former he omitted, 
and the latter he did.— xal ro or£pu. aitov] kai is the simple and, not 
namely (see Gen. l.c.). The promise primarily concerned Abraham as the 
participant father of the race himself. Comp. Luke i. 71.— This verse, 
too, stands apparently at variance with Genesis, where, in chap. xxiii., we 
are informed that Abraham purchased a field from the sons of Heth. But 
only apparently. For the remark oux édwxev ait@ . . . modös refers only to 
the first period of Abraham’s residence in Palestine before the institution 
of circumcision (ver. 8), while that purchase of a field falls much later. It 
was therefore quite superfluous, either * to emphasize the fact that Abraham 
had not in fact acquired that field by divine direction, but had purchased 
it, or * to have recourse to the erroneous assumption, not to be justified 
either by John vii. 8 or by Mark xi. 13, that oi« stands for oir. 

Vv. 6, 7. By the continuative dé there is now brought in the express 
declaration of God, which was given on occasion of this promise to Abraham 
concerning the future providential guidance destined for his posterity. 
But God, at that time, spoke thus: ‘‘ that his seed will dwell as strangers in a 
foreign land,”’ etc. The örı does not depend on é242., nor is it the recitative, 
but it is a constituent part of the very saying adduced.® This is Gen. xv. 13, 
but with the second person (thy seed) converted into the third, and also 
otherwise deviating from the LXX.; in fact, kai Aatp. poe év TH TéTW TOdTH 
is entirely wanting in the LXX. and Hebrew, and is an expansion suggested 
by Ex. iii. 12. — éorae räporov] MM WM. Comp. on Luke xxiv. 18; Eph. il, 
19. — dovAdsove:y alrö] namely, the aAAörpror. — rerpanöcıa] Here, as in an 
oracle, the duration is given, as also at Gen. l.c., in round numbers ; but in 
Ex. xii. 40 this period of Egyptian sojourning and bondage ° is historically 
specified eractly as 430 years (c'). In Gal. iii. 17 (see in loc.), Paul has 
inappropriately referred the chronological statement of Ex. xii. 40 to the 
space of time from the promise made to Abraham down to the giving of 


1 Winer, p. 386 f. (E. T. 516 f.) ; Dissen, ad 3 With Drusius, Schoettgen, Bengel. 


Pind. Ol. xi. 38, p. 132. 4 With Kuinoel and Olshausen. 
2 LXX. Deut. ii. 5 (937-73), spatium, quod 5 LXX.: yıwWokwv yvwon OTe mapotKoy K.T.A, 
planta pedis calcatur. ‘Comp. on Bjua in the 6 &m rerpar. belongs to the whole eoras 


sense of vestigium, Hom. H. Mere. 222, 345. 2... KAKWTOVTL. 


HISTORY OF PATRIARCHS. 143 


the law.— Ver. 7. Asin the LXX. and in the original Heb. the whole 
passage vv. 6, 7 is expressed in direct address (rö oröpua cov), while Stephen 
in ver. 6 has adduced it in the indirect form ; so henow, passing over to the 
direct expression, inserts the eirev 6 Oed¢, which is not in the LXX. nor in 
the Heb. — And, after this 400 years’ bondage, the people. . . I shall judge , 
kpivew of judicial retribution, which, as frequently in the N. T., is seen from 
the context to be punitive. — £y6] has the weight of the authority of divine 
absoluteness. Comp. Rom. xii. 19. —év rö röorw rotrw] namely, where I now 
speak with thee (in Canaan). There is no reference to MHoreb,' as we have 
here only a freely altered echo of the promise made to Moses, which 
suggested itself tu Stephen, in order to denote more definitely the promise 
made to Abraham. Arbitrary suggestions are made by Bengel and Baum- 
garten, who find an indication of the long distance of time and the 
intervening complications. Stephen, however, here makes no erroneous 
reference (de Wette), but only a ‚free application, such as easily presented 
itself in an extempore speech. 

Ver. 8. Aradyknv wepıroujce] a covenant completed by means of cireumcision.? 
Abraham was bound to the introduction of circumcision; and, on the 
other hand, God bound Himself to make him the father of many nations. 
—idoxev] inasmuch as God proposed and laid on Abraham the conclusion 
of the covenant. —vizwce] so, i.e. standing in this new relation to God,* as 
the bearer of the divine covenant of circumeision. JIshmael was born 
previously. —xai 6 'Icaak r. ‘Iaxd3| namely, éyévvyce x. repıer. T. mu. T. 070. 

Vv. 9-13. Zy2dcavrec] here of envious jealousy, as often also in classical 
writers. Certainly Stephen in this mention has already in view the similar 
malicious disposition of his judges towards Jesus, so that in the ill-used 
Joseph, as afterwards also in the despised Moses, both of whom yet became 
deliverers of the people, he sees historical types of Christ. — azédovro eig 
Aiy.] they gave him away to Egypt.* For analogous examples to arod. eic, 
see Elsner, p. 390.—The following clauses, rising higher and higher with 
simple solemnity, are linked on by kai. — yapıv x. cogiav| It is simplest * to 
explain ydpw of the divine bestowal of grace, and to refer évavtiov dap. 
merely to oooiav: He gave him grace, generally, and in particular, wisdom 
before Pharaoh, namely, according to the history which is presumed to be 
well known, in the interpretation of dreams as well as for other counsel. 
—yoiu.| ‘‘vice regis cuncta regentem,’’ Gen, xli. 42, Grotius. — x. 6A. 7. 
oik. aur.] as high steward. — xopraouara] fodder for their cattle. So through- 
out with Greek writers.° A scarcity of fodder, to which especially belongs 
the want of cereal fodder, is the most urgent difficulty, in a failure of crops, 
for the possessors of large herds of cattle. — övra orria] that there was corn. 
The question, Where ? finds its answer from the context and the familiar 
history. The following eic Aiyurrov (see critical remarks) belongs to éazécr., 
and is, from its epoch-making significance, emphatically placed first. On 


1 Ex. iii. 12: év 7 öper tovTw. 5 Comp. Gen. xxxix. 21. 
2 Gen. xvii. 10. Comp. on Rom. iv. 11. 6 And comp. LXX. Gen. xxiv. 25, 32, xlii. 
> Comp. on Eph. v. 33. 27; Judg. xix. 19; Ecclus, xxxiii. 29, xxviii. 


4 By sale, comp. v.8; Gen. xlv. 4, LXX. 29. 


144 CHAP: Vil. 14-16. 


axoverv, to learn, with the predicative participle, see Winer ;' frequent also 
in Greek writers.— üveyvwpichn] he was recognised by his brethren,? to be taken 
passively, as also Gen. xlv. 1, when the LXX. thus translates YUN. — 
TO yévog Tov 'Iwoyo] the name* is significantly repeated ;* a certain sense of 
patriotic pride is implied in it. 

Vv. 14, 15. "Ev wp. EBdoumk. révte] in 75 souls, persons,’ he called his father 
and, in general, the whole family, z.e. he called them in a personal number 
of 75, which was the sum containing them. The expression is a Hebraism 
(2), after the LXX. Deut. x. 22. In the number Stephen, however, follor’s 
the LXX. Gen. xlvi. 27, Ex. i. 5,° where likewise 75 souls are specified, 
whereas the original text, which Josephus follows,’ reckons only 70.°— 
aizo¢ Kk. of rar. juav| he and our patriarchs, generally. 
epanorthosis. See on John ii. 12. 

Ver. 16. Merer£ßnoav] namely, avröc x. of marépec yuav. Incorrectly 
Kuinoel and Olshausen refer it only to the rar£pec ;° whereas airic kal oi 
marépec yuav are named as the persons belonging to the same category, of 
whom the being dead is affirmed. Certainly Gen. xlix. 30,” according to 
which Jacob was buried in the cave of Machpelah at Hebron (Gen. xxiii.), 
is at variance with the statement werer£d. cic Suyéu. But Stephen—from 
whose memory in the hurry of an extemporary speech this statement 
escaped, and not the statement, that Joseph’s body was buried at Sychem*— 
transfers the locality of the burial of Joseph not merely to his brethren, of 
whose burial-place the O. T. gives no information, but also to Jacob him- 


A very common 


1 p. 325 (E. T. 436). 

2 Plat. Pol. p. 258 A, Pharm. p. 127 A, Lach. 
p. 181 C. 

3 Instead of the simple avrov, as A E, 40. 
Arm. Vulg. read. 

4 Bornem. ad Xen. Symp. 7%. 34; Kühner, 
ad Xen. Anab. i. 7. 11. 

5 ji. 41, xxvii. 37. 

6 At Deut. 2.c. also Codex A has the reading 
75, which 1s, however, evidently a mere alter- 
ation by a later hand in accordance with the 
two other passages. Already Philo (see Loes- 
ner, p. 185) mentions the two discrepant state- 
ments of number (75 according to Gen. Z.c. 
and Ex. /.e., and %0 according to Deut. Z.c.) 
and allegorizes upon them, 

7 Ante. ii. 7%. 4, vi. 5. 6. 

8 According to the Hebrew, the nnmber 70 
is thus made up: all the descendants of Jacob 
who came down with him to Egypt are fixed 
at 66, Gen. xlvi. 26, and then, ver. 27, Joseph 
and his two sons and Jacob himself (that is, 
“ four persons more) are included. In the 
reckoning of the LXX., influenced by a dis- 
crepant tradition, there are added to those 66 
persons (ver. 26) in ver. 27 (contrary to the 
original text), vior de Iwan ot yerönevor avry 
ev yn Alyintw Wuyxat Evvea, So that 75 persons 
are male out. It is thus evidently contrary to 


this express mode of reckoning of the LXX., 
when it is commonly assumed (also by Wet- 
stein, Michaelis, Rosenmüller, Kuinoel, Ols- 
hausen) that the LXX. had added to the 70 
persons of the original text 5 grandchildren 
and great-grandchildren of Joseph (who are 
named in the LXX. Gen. xlvi. 20). Butin 
the greatest contradiction to the above notice 
of the LXX. stands the view of Seb. Schmid, 
with whom Wolf agrees, that the LXX. had 
added to the 66 persons (ver. 26) the wives of 
the sons of Jacob, and from the sum of 78 
thereby made up had again deducted 3 persons, 
namely, the wife of Judah who had died in 
Canaan, the wife of Joseph and Joseph him- 
self, so that the number 75 is left. Entirely 
unhistorical is the hypothesis of Krebs and 
Loesner: ‘*Stephanum apud Luc. (et LXX.) 
de iis loqui, qui in Aegyptum invitati fuerint, 
Mosen ‚de his, qui eo venerint, quorum non 
nisi 70 fuerunt.” Beza conjectured, instead 
of wévre in our passage : mavres (!); and Mas- 
sonius, instead of the numeral signs OE (75), 
the numeral signs CZ (66). For yet other 
views, see Wolf. 

9 See also Hackett. 

10 Comp. Joseph. Antt. ii. 8. 7. 

11 Josh. xxiv, 83, comp. Gen. 1. 25. 


HISTORY OF THE PATRIARCHS. 145 


self, in unconscious deviation, as respects the latter, from Gen. xlix. 30 (p!). 
Perhaps the Rabbinical tradition, that all the brethren of Joseph were also 
buried at Sychem,' was even then current, and thus more easily suggested 
to Stephen the error with respect to Jacob. It is, however, certain that 
Stephen has not followed an account deviating from this,” which transfers 
the burial of all the patriarchs to Hebron, although no special motive can 
be pointed out in the matter ; and it is entirely arbitrary, with Kuinoel, 
to assume that he had wished thereby to convey the idea that the Samari- 
tans, to whom, in his time, Sychem belonged, could not, as the possessors 
of the graves of the patriarchs, have been rejected by God. — wvycaro 
’ABp.| which, formerly, Abraham bought. But according to Gen. xxxiii. 19, 
it was not Abraham, but Jucob, who purchased a piece of land from the 
sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem. On the other hand, Abraham pur- 
chased from Ephron the field and burial-cave at Hebron (Gen. xxiii.). 
Consequently, Stephen has here evidently fallen into a mistake, and asserted 
of Abraham what historically applied to Jacob, being led into error by the 
fact that something similar was recorded of Abraham. If expositors had 
candidly admitted the mistake so easily possible in the hurry of the 
moment, they would have been relieved from all strange and forced expe- 
dients of an exegetical and critical nature, and would neither have assumed 
a purchase not mentioned at all in the ©. T., nor,’ a combining of two pur- 
chases,* and two burials ;° nor,® against all external and internal critical 
evidence, have asserted the obnoxious’ Ap. to be spurious,’ either supplying 
‘Tax as the subject to avycaro,* or taking ovyoaro as impersonal ; * nor would 
’Aßp., with unprecedented arbitrariness, have been explained as used in a 
patronymic sense for Abrahamides, i.e. Jacobus.‘° Conjectural emendations 
are: 'Iaröß,'' 6 tov '"Aßpaau.'"* Other forced attempts at reconciliation may 
be seen in Grotius aud Calovius. — roi Suyéu] the father of Sychem.* The 
relationship is presupposed as well known.— avicaro] is later Greek. "*— rinje 
apyup.| the genitive of price : for a purchase-money consisting of silver. The 
LXX. (Gen. xxxiii. 19) has &xarov auvav," for which Stephen has adopted 
a general expression, because the precise one was probably not present to 
his recollection. 


1 Lightf. and Wetst. in loc. 

2 Joseph. Antt. ii. 8. 2. 

3 Flacius, Bengel, comp. Luger. 

4 Gen. xxiii., xxxiii. 

5 Gen. 1. ; Josh. xxiv. 

6 Beza, Bochart, Bauer in Philol. Thue. 
Paul. p. 167, Valckenaer, Kuinoel. 

7 Comp. Calvin. 

€ Beza, Bochart. 

* “ Quod emtum erat,’’ Kuinoel. 

10 Glass, Fessel, Surenhusius, Krebs. 

11 Glericus. 

12 Cappellus. 

132 Not the son of Sycbem, as the Vulgate, 
Erasmus, Castalio, and others have it. See 
Gen. xxxiii. 19. Lachmann reads roo ev, 3., 1n 
accord doubtless with important witnesses, of 


which several have only év 3., but evidently 
an alteration arising from the opinion that 
Zvxen was the cify. The circumstance that in 
no other passage of the N.T. the genitive of 
relationship is to be explained by rarnp, must 
be regarded as purely accidental. Entirely 
similar are the passages where with female 
name unrnp is to be supplied, as Luke xxiv. 
10. See generally, Winer, p. 178 f. (E. T. 
237). Ifjilii were to be supplied, this would 
yield a fresh historical error ; and not that 
quite another Hamor is meant than at Gen. 
Z.c. (in opposition to Beelen). 

14 Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 137 f. 

15 Probably the name of a coin, see Bochart, 
Hieroz. 1. p. 473 ff. ; Gesenius, Thes. ii. p. 
1241, 8.v. no'yD. 


146 CHAP. VII., 17-23. 


Vv. 17, 18. Kadc] is not, as is commonly assumed, with an appeal to 
the critically corrupt passage 2 Macc. i. 31, to be taken as a particle of 
time cum, but! as quemadmodum. In proportion as the time of the promise, 
the time destined for its realization, drew nigh, the people grew, etc. — je 
©poady. K.r.A.] which God promised (ver. 7). öwoAoy., often so used in Greek 
writers ; comp. Matt. xiv. 7. — aveorn Baothed¢ Erepoc] tH¢ BaowAeiacg eig aAAov 
oikov peteAqAvdviac,? Joseph. Antt. ii. 9. 1. — öc our ndeı Tov ’Iwonp]| who knew 
not Joseph, his history and his services to the country. This might be said 
both in Ex. i. Sand here with truth; because, in all the transactions of 
Pharaoh with Moses and the Israelites, there is nothing which would lead 
us to conclude that the king knew Joseph. ZErroneously Erasmus and 
others, including Krause, huld that oida and y' here signify to love; and 
Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Olshausen, Hackett render: who did not regard the 
merits of Joseph. In 1 Thess. v. 12, also, it means simply to know, to 
understand, 

Ver. 19. Karacogifecfa] to employ cunning against any one, to beguile, LXX. 
Ex. i. 10. Only here in the N. T.* — rov roıeiv Exdera ra Bpépn avtor] a 
construction purely indicative of design ; comp. on iii. 12. But it cannot 
belong to xaraoooıo,* but only to éxax. Comp. 1 Kings xvii. 20. He mal- 
treated them, in order that they should expose their children (E'), i.e. to force 
upon them the exposure of their children.°— ei¢ 70 u7 [woy.] ne vivi conserva- 
rentur, the object of roriv éxfera Tt. Bp. avr.® 

Ver. 20. ‘Ev © xappo] ‘‘tristi, opportuno,’’ Beng. — doreiog rH Oe, | 
Luther aptly renders : a fine child for God,—i.e. so beautifully and grace- 
fully formed,’ that he was by God esteemed as aoreioc.® In substance, there- 
fore, the expression amounts to the superlative idea; but it is not to be 
taken asa paraphrase of the superlative, but as conceived in its proper 
literal sense.’ The expressions Qeosıdyc and Geoeixedoc, compared by many, 
are not here revelant, as they do not correspond to the conception of aoreiog 
ro Oew@. — Moses’ beauty" is also praised in Philo, Vit. Mos. i. p. 604 A, and 
Joseph. Antt. ii. 9. 7, where he is called raic uopen Oeioc. According to 
Jalkut Rubeni, f. 75. 4, he was beautiful as an angel. — ujvac rpeig] Ex. ii. 
2. — rov marpöc] Amram, Ex. vi. 20. 

Vv. 21, 22. 'Exref. 62 abröv, aveiA. auröv] Repetition of the pronoun as in 
Matt. xxvi. 71; Mark ix. 28; Matt. viii. 1.!!— dveiAaro] took him up (sustu- 
lit, Vulg.). So also often among Greek writers, of exposed children ; see 
Wetstein. — éavrq ] in contrast to his own mother. — eic viöv] Ex. ii. 10, for 
a son, so that he became a son to herself. So also in classical Greek with 


1 Comp. also Grimm on 2 Macc. i. 31. 

2 The previous dynasty was that of the Hyk- 
sos; the new king was Ahmes, who expelled 
the Hyksos. See Knobel on Ex. i. 8. 

3 But see Kypke, II. p. 37: and from Philo, 
Loesner, p. 186. Aorist participle, as in i. 4. 

4 So Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 846. 

5 On moreiv Exdeta = éxBeivar, COMP. Torey 
€xdotov = éxd.dovat, Herod. iil. 1; on exderos, 
Eur. Andr. 70. 


* Comp. LXX. Ex.i. 17 ; Luke xvii. 33. See 
on 2 Cor. viii. 6; Rom. i. 20. 

7 Comp. Judith xi. 23. 

8 Comp. Winer, p. 232 (E. T. 310). 

9See also on 2 Cor. x. 4. Hesiod, "Epy. 
825: avairıos adavaroıcıv, and Aesch. Agam. 
352 : Ocoıs avammAarnros, are parallels; as are 
from the O. T., Gen. x. 9, Jonah iii. 3. 

10 Ex. ii. 2; comp. Heb. xi. 23. [p. 377. 

11 See on Matt. viii. 1, Fritzsche, ad Mare. 


JEWS UNDER THE LAWS. 147 


verbs of development.’ — raon cogia Aiy.] Instrumental dative. The notice 
itself is not from the O. T., but from tradition, which certainly was, from 
the circumstances in which Moses? was placed, true. The wisdom of the 
Egyptians extended mainly to natural science, with magic, astronomy, 
medicine, and muthematics ; and the possessors of this wisdom were chiefly 
the priestly caste,* which also represented political wisdom.‘*— duvaröc év 
Ady. x. Epy.| see on Luke xxiv. 19.  év épy. refers not only to his miraculous 
activity, but generally to the whole of his abundant labours. With dw. év 
Adyore ® Ex. iv. 10 appears at variance ; but Moses in that passage does not 
describe himself as a stammerer, but only as one whose address was unskil- 
ful, and whose utterance was clumsy. But even an address not naturally 
fluent may, with the accession of a higher endowment,® be converted into 
eloquence, and become highly effective through the Divine Spirit, by which 
it is sustained, as was afterwards the historically well-known case with the 
addresses of Moses.” Thus, even before his public emergence, for to this 
time the text refers, a higher power of speech may have formed itself in 
him. Hence düv. év Ady. is neither to be referred, with Krause, to the writ- 
ings of Moses, nor to be regarded, with Heinrichs, as a once-current gen- 
eral eulogium ; nor is it to be said, with de Wette, that admiration for the 
celebrated lawgiver had caused it to be forgotten that he made use of his 
brother Aaron as his spokesman. 

Ver. 23. But when a period of forty years became full to him,—i.e. when he 
was precisely 40 years old. This exact specification of age is not found in 
the O. T. (Ex. ii. 11), but is traditional.*— avé8n éxt tiv Kapdiav aitov] it 
arose into his heart, i.e. came into his mind, to visit, to see how it went with 
them, etc. The expression’ is adopted from the LXX., where it is an imita- 
tion of the Hebrew 27 92 79%, Jer. iii. 16, xxxii. 35; Isa. Ixv. 17,2 
Neither is 6 duadoyrauöc, for which Luke xxiv. 38 is erroneously appealed to, 
nor 7 BovAr to be supplied. — éricxéy.] invisere, Matt. xxv. 36, often also in 
Greek writers. He had hitherto been aloof from them, in the higher circles of 
Egyptian society and culture, — rove adeAgoic] ‘‘motivum amoris,’’ Bengel. 
Comp. ver. 26. 

Vv. 24, 25. See Ex. ii. 11, 12. — adıreiodar] to be unjustly treated. Erro- 
neously Kuinoel holds that it here signifies verberari. That was the mal- 
treatment. — juivaro| he exercised retaliation. Only here in the N. T., often 
in classic Greek. Similarly aueißsodar.!! — x. Erroino. éxdix.] and procured 
revenge (Judg. xi. 36). He became his éxdcxoc, vindex. — To kararovovu.] for 
him who was on the point of being overcome, present participle.!? — rardsac] 
mode of the juivaro k. Emoino, k.r.A, Wolf aptly says: ‘‘Percussionem vio- 


1 Bernhardy, p. 218 f. See Lightfoot in loc. Bengel says: ‘‘ Mosis 
2 Philo, Vit. Mos. vita ter 40 anni, vv. 30, 36.”’ 

8 Isa. xix. 12. ® Comp. 1 Cor. ii. 9. 

4 Comp. Justin. xxxvi. 2. 10 ** Potest aliquid esse in profundo animae, 
5 Comp. Joseph. Antt. iii 1.4: mAndeı out- quod postea emergit et incor . . . ascendit,” 

Acty mudavwraros. Bengel. 

6 Comp. Luke xxi. 15. 11See Poppo, ad Thuc. i. 42; Herm. ad 
7 Comp. Joseph. Anit. ii. 12. 2. Soph. Ant. 639. [xi. 6, xiii. 56. 


® Beresh.f. 115.3; Schemoth Rabb. f. 118. 3. 12 Comp. Polyb. xxix, 11. 11, xl, 7.3; Diod. 


148 CHAP. VII, 26-37. 


lentam caedis causa factam hic innui indubium est.’? Comp. Matt. xxvi. 
31, and see ver. 28. — The inaccuracy, that röv Aiyvrrıov has no definite 
reference in the words that precede it, but only an indirect indication! in 
adırovuevov, Which presupposes a maltreater, is explained from the cireum- 
stances of the event being so universally known.—Ver. 25. But he thought 
that his brethren would observe that God by his hand (intervention) was giving them 
deliverance. — didwow] the giving is conceived as even now beginning ; the first 
step toward effecting the liberation from bondage had already taken place 
by the killing of the Egyptian, which was to be to them the signal of 
deliverance. 

Vv. 26, 27 f. See Ex. ii. 13 f. —do6y] he showed himself to them,—when, 
namely, he arrived among them ‘‘rursus invisurus suos.’’? Well does 
Bengel find in the expression the reference ultro, ex improviso.* — avroig] 
refers back to aderdovc. It is presumed in this case as well known, that 
there were two who strove. — ovvnAacev ait. eic eip.] he drove them together, 
by representations, to (cic, denoting the end aimed at) peace.* The aorist 
does not stand de conatu,° but the act actually took place on Moses’ part ; 
the fact that it was resisted on the part of those who strove, alters not the 
action. Grotius, moreover, correctly remarks : ‘‘ vox quasi vim significans 
agentis instantiam significat.’? — 6 dé adıkav r. zAno.| but he who treated his 
neighbour, one by nationality his brother, wnjustly, was still in the act of 
maltreating him. — üröcaro] thrust him from him. On xartornoev, has ap- 
‘pointed, comp. Bremi, ad Dem. Ol. p. 171; and on diraoryc, who judges 
according to the laws, as distinguished from the more general kpırzc, Wyt- 
tenbach, Ep. crit. p. 219. — i) avedeiv x.7.2.] thou wilt not surely despatch (il. 
23, v. 33) me? To the pertness of the question belongs also the oü. 

Vv. 29, 30. See Ex. ii. 15-22, iii. 2. — év 76 Aöyo TobTw] on account of this 
word, denoting the reason which occasioned his flight.° — Madıäu] ])V), a 
district in Arabia Petraea. Thus Moses had to withdraw from his obsti- 
nate people ; but how wonderfully active did the divine guidance show it- 
self anew, ver. 30! On äporkoc, comp. ver. 6.— al mAnpwd. Erov Teccapak. } 
traditionally, but comp. also Ex. vii. 7: ‘‘ Moses in palatio Pharaonis degit 
XL annos, in Mediane XL annos, et ministravit Israeli annos XL.’’ ’— &v rq 
Ephup tov dp. 2.] in the desert, in which Mount Sinai is situated, “0 V3, Ex. 
xix. 1, 2; Lev. vii. 28. From the rocky and mountainous base of this 
desert Sinai rises to the south (and the highest), and Horeb more to the 
north, both as peaks of the same mountain ridge. Hence there is no con- 
tradiction when, in Ex. iii., the appearance of the burning bush is trans- 
ferred to the neighbourhood of Horeb, as generally in the Pentateuch the 
names Sinai and Horeb are interchanged for the locality of the giving of 
the law, except in Deut. xxxiii. 2, where only Horeb is mentioned, as also 
in Mal. iv. 4; whereas in the N. T. and in Josephus only Sinai is named. 
The latter name specially denotes the locality of the giving of the law, while 


1 Winer, p. 587 (E. T. 788). xx. 134. 
2 Erasmus. Comp. 1 Kings iii. 16. © Grotius, Wolf, Kuinoel. 
3 Comp. ii. 3, vii. 2, ix. 17, al. ; Heb. ix. 28. 6 Winer, p. 362 (E. T. 484). 


* The opposite: £pıdı EvveAacoar, Hom. I. 7 Beresh. Rabb.f. 115. 3. 


JEWS UNDER THE LAW. 149 


Horeb was also the name of the entire mountain range. — iv HAoyi mupöe 
Barov] in the flume of fire of a thorn bush. Stephen designates the phenom- 
enon quite as it is related in Exodus, l.c., as a flaming burning bush, in 
which an angel of God was present, in which case every attempt to explain 
away the miraculous theophany, a meteor, lightning, must be avoided.’ 

Vv. 31-33. See Ex. iii. 3-5. — 7d öpaua] spectaculum. See on Matt. xvii. 
9. — xaravojoaı] to contemplate, Luke xii. 24, 27; Acts xi. 6. — @wr7 kupiov] 
as the angel represents Jehovah Himself, so is he identified with Him. 
When the angel of the Lord speaks, that is the voice of God, as it is His 
representative servant, the angel, who speaks. To understand, with Chry- 
sostom, Calovius, and others, the angelus increatus —i.e. Christ as the 2Adyog — 
as meant, is consequently unnecessary, and also not in keeping with the anar- 
throus ayyeAoc, which Hengstenberg * wrongly denies (F’). Comp. xii. 7, 
23. — Avoov 7d brödnua Tov mod. cov.| The holiness of the presence of God 
required, as it was in keeping generally with the religious feeling of the 
East,* that he who held intercourse with Jehovah should be barefooted, lest 
the sandals charged with dust should pollute (Josh. v. 15) the holy ground 
(y7 ayia); hence also the priests in the temple waited on their service with 
bare feet.° 

Ver. 34. ‘Idav eidov] LXX. Ex. iii. 7. Hence here an imitation of the 
Hebrew form of expression. Similar emphatic combinations were, how- 
ever, not alien to other Greek.’ — xarößnv] namely, from heaven, where I 
am enthroned.* — azvareiAw (see the critical remarks), adhortative subjunc- 
tive.’ 

Vy. 35-37. The recurring roörov is emphatic: thisand none other." Also 
in the following vv. 36, 37, 38, oiroc . . . ovtog . . . oüroc are always em- 
phatically prefixed. — öv npvjoavro] whom they at that time, ver. 27, denied, 
namely, as dpyovra kai dıkaoryv. The plural is purposely chosen, because 
there is meant the whole category of those thinking alike with that one (ver. 
27). This one is conceived collectively.'' — apy. x. Avrpworiw] observe the climax 
introduced by ?Avrpvr. in relation to the preceding diraor. It is introduced 
because the obstinacy of the people against Moses is type of the antago- 
nism to Christ and His work (ver. 51) ; consequently, Moses in his work of 
deliverance is a type of Christ, who has effected the Atrpwore of the people 
in the highest sense.!?—— According to the reading civ yeıpi (see the critical 
remarks), the meaning is to be taken as: standing in association with the 


1 See the particularsin Knobel on Ex. xix. 2. 

2On dAdé mupös, comp. 2 Thes. i. 8, Lach- 
mann; Heb. i. 7; Rev. i. 14, ii. 18, xix. 12; 
Isa. xxix. 6, lvi. 15; Pind. Pyth. iv. 400. 

3 Ohristol. III. 2, p. 70. 

4 Even in the present day the Arabs, as is 
well known, enter their mosques barefooted. 
The precept of Pythagoras, avvmöönros Sve Kat 
mpooxvver, was derived from an Hyyptian cus- 
tom. Jamblich. Vit. Pyfh. 23. The Samari- 
tan trode barefoot the holiest place on Ge- 
rizim, Robinson, III. p. 320. [769 tt. 

5See Wetstein; also Carpzov. Apyar. p. 


5 Comp. Matt. xiii. 14; Heb. vi. 14. 

7See on 1 Cor. ii.1; Lobeck, Paralip. p. 
532. (dv eidor is found in Lucian, Dial. Mar. 
iv. 3. 

8 Isa. Ixvi. 1; Matt. v. 34. Comp. Gen. xi. 
7, XVille els) PSs Cv. 5. 

®See Elmsl. ad Hur. Bacch. 341, Med. 1242. 

10 See Bornemann in the Sdchs, Stud. 1842, 
p. 66. 

11 Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 4. 8. 
Roth, Zee. Agr. 3. 

12 Luke i. 64, ii. 38; Heb. ix. 12; Tit. ii. 14. 


Comp. 


150 CHAP. VII., 38-42. 


hand, i.e. with the protecting and helping power, of the angel. Comp. the 
classical expression odv Oeoic. This power of the angel was that of God 
Himself (ver. 34), in virtue of which he wrought also the miracles, ver. 36. 
— As to the gender of Bdroc, see on Mark xii. 26. — After the work of Moses 
(ver. 36), ver. 37 now brings into prominence his great Messianic prophecy, 
which designates himself as a type of the Messiah ;! whereupon in ver. 38 
his exalted position as the receiver and giver of the law is described, in order 
that this light, in which he stands, may be followed up in ver. 39 by the 
shadow—the contrast of disobedience towards him. 

Ver. 88. This is he who... had intercourse with the angel . . . and our 
Jathers, was the mediator (Gal. iii. 19) between the two.? — év rq éxxAnoia 
év TH Epnuw] in the assembly of the people, held for the promulgation of the 
law, in the desert, Ex. xix. This definite reference is warranted by the 
context, as it is just the special act of the giving of the law that is spoken 
of. — Aöyıa Zövra] ¢.e. utterances which are not dead, and so ineffectual, 
but living, in which, as in the self-revelations of the living God, there is 
effective power (Jolin vi. 51), as well with reference to their influence on the 
moulding of the moral life according to God’s will, as also especially with 
reference to the fulfilment of the promises and threatenings thereto an- 
nexed.* Incorrectly Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Kuinoel, and others hold that 
¢qv stands for Gworoeitv. Even according to Paul, the law in itself is holy, 
just, good, spiritual, and given for life (Rom. vii. 12, 14); that it never- 
theless kills, arises from the abuse which the power of sin makes of it,* and 
is therefore an accidental relation. 

Vv. 39,40. They turned with their hearts to Egypt, i.e. they directed their 
desires again to the mode of life pursued in Egypt, particularly, as is evident 
from the context (ver. 40), to the Egyptian idolatry. Ex. xx. 7, 8, 24. 
Others, including Cornelius a Lapide, Morus, Rosenmiüller : they wished to 
return back to Egypt. But the oi mporopevoovra: judy in ver. 40 would then 
have to be taken as: ‘who shall go before us on our return,’’—which is 
just as much at variance with the historical position at Ex. xxxii. 1 as 
with Ex. xxxii. 4, 1 Kings xii. 28, and Neh. ix. 18, where the golden bull 
appears as a symbol of the God who has led the Israelites out of Egypt. — 
0eovc] the plural, after Ex. xxxii. 1, denotes the category,’ without reference 
to the numerical relation. That Aaron made only one idol was the result 
of the universally expressed demand; and in accord with this universal 
demand is also the expression in Ex. xxxii. 4. —oi mporop.] borne before 
our line of march, as the symbols, to be revered by us, of the present 
Jehovah, — 6 yap. M. oiroc] yap gives the motive of the demand. Moses, 
hitherto our leader, has in fact disappeared, so that we need another guid- 
ance representative of God. — oiroc] spoken contemptuously.° — The nomi- 
native absolute is designedly chosen, in order to concentrate the whole 


1 Deut. xviii. 15 (comp. above, iii. 22). xxxii. 47. 

2 On yivonaı pera, versor cum, which is no 4 Rom. vii. 5, 13 ff.; 1 Cor. xy. 55. 
Tlebraism, comp. ix. 19, xx. 18; Mark xvi. 5 See on Matt. ii. 20. 
10; Ast, Zea. Plat. I. p. 394. 6 See on vi. 14. 


3 Comp. 1 Pet. i. 235, Heb. v. 12); Deut. 


JEWS UNDER THE LAW. 151 


attention on the conception.' For this Moses . . . we know not what has 
happened to him, since he returns not from the mount. 

Ver. 41. "Eyooyoroincav] they made a bull, Ex. xxxii. 4: &moinoev avira 
uöoxov yovevrov. The word does not elsewhere occur, except in the Fathers, 
and may have belonged to the colloquial language. The idol itself was an 
imitation of the very ancient and widely-spread bull-worship in Egypt, 
which had impressed itself in different forms, e.g. in the woıship of Apis 
at Memphis, and of Mnevis at Heliopolis. Hence yooxoc is not a calf, but* 
equivalent to raüpoc, a young bull already full-grown, but not yet put into 
the yoke. — Examples of avayecv —namely, to the altar, 1 Kings iii. 15 —@voiav 
may be seen in Elsner, p. 393, and from Philo in Loesner, p. 189. — eigpai- 
vovro] they rejoiced in the works of their hands. By the interpretation : ‘‘ they 
held sacrificial feasts’? (Kuinoel), the well-known history (Ex. xxxii. 6), 
to which the meaning of the words points, is confounded with that 
meaning itself. —épyow] plural of the cateyory, which presented itself in 
the golden calf. On cigpaiv. év,* to denote that on which the joy is causally 
based, compare yaipev év, Luke x. 20 ; see on Phil. i. 18, 

Ver. 42. “Eorpewe 08 6 Oeöc] but God turned,—a figurative representation 
of the idea: He became unfavourable to them. The active in a neuter sense ;* 
nothing is to be supplied. Incorrectly Vitringa, Morus, and others hold that 
éorpewe connected with rapid. denotes, after the Hebrew 21%, rursus tradi- 
dit. This usage has not passed over to the N. T., and, moreover, it is not 
vouched for historically that the Israelites at an earlier period practised 
star-worship. Heinrichs connects éorp. with aizoi¢: ** convertit animos 
eorum ab una idololatria ad aliam.’’ But the expression of divine disfavour 
is to be retained on account of the correlation with ver. 39. — kai rap£d. 
avtove Aatp.| and gave them up to serve, an explanatory infinitive. The fall. 
ing away into star-worship, orpar. r. ovpavov = DAWN NIS, in which, from 
the worshipper’s point of view, the sun, moon, and stars are conceived as 
living beings, is apprehended as wrought by an angry God by way of pun- 
ishment for that bull-worship, according to the idea of sin being punished 
by sin. The assertion, often repeated since the time of Chrysostom and 
Theophylact, that only the divine permission or the withdrawal of grace is 
here denoted, is at variance with the positive expression and the true 
biblical conception of the divine retribution.® Self-surrender (Eph. iv. 
19) is the correlative moral factor on the part of man. — u ooayıa «.r.A.] 
Amos v. 25-27, freely after the LXX. Ye have not surely presented unto me 
sacrifices and offerings, offerings of any kind, for forty years in the wilder- 
ness? The question supposes a negative answer; therefore without an in- 
terrogation the meaning is: Ye cannot maintain that ye have offered . . . to 
me. The apparent contradiction with the accounts of offerings, which were 
actually presented to Jehovah in the desert,° disappears when the pro- 


1 Comp. on Matt. vii. 24; Buttm. newt. Gr. 41 Macc. ii. 63; Acts v.22, xv.16; Kühncr, 
p. 325 (E. T. 379); Valck. Schol. p. 429. IL. pp. 9, 10. 

2 Comp. Heb. ix. 12, 13, 19; Herod. iii. 28. 5 See on Rom. i. 24. 

3 Ecclus. xiv. 5, xxxix. 31, li. 29; Xen. Hier. 6 Ex. xxiv. 4 ff.; Num. vii., ix. 1 ff. 


210. 


152 CHAP. VII., 43, 44. 


phetic utterance, understood by Stephen as a reproach,! is considered as a 
sternly and sharply significant divine verdict, according to which the ritual 
offerings in the desert, which were rare and only occurred on special occa- 
sions (comp. already Lyra), could not be taken at all into consideration 
against the idolatrous aberrations which testified the moral worthlessness 
of those offerings. Usually? you is considered as equivalent to mihi soli. 
But this is incorrect on account of the enelitie pronoun and its position, and 
on account of the arbitrarily intruded pdévov. Fritzsche* puts the note of 
interrogation only after mpookvveiv avroic, ver. 43: ‘‘ Sacrane et victimas per 
XL annos in deserto mihi obtulistis, et in pompa tulistis aedem Molochi, 
etc.?’’ In this way God’s displeasure at the unstedfastness of His people 
would be vividly denoted by the contrast. But this expedient is im- 
possible on account of the „7 presupposing a negation. Moreover, it is as 
foreign to the design of Stephen, who wishes to give a probative passage 
for the Aarpevew TH orparıa Tov oupavov, to concede the worship of Jehovah, as 
it is, on the other hand, in the highest degree accordant with that design 
to recognise in ver. 42 the negative element of his proof, the denial of 
the rendering of offering to Jehovah, and in ver. 43 the positive proof, 
the direct reproach of star-worship. 

Ver. 43. rpookvveiv abroic| is the answer which God Himself 
gives to His question, and in which xai joins on to the negation implied in 
the preceding clause : No, this ye have not done, and instead of it ye have 
taken up from the earth, in order to carry it in procession from one encamp- 
ment to another, the tent, N20, the portable tent-temple, of Moloch. — rov 
MoA6y] so according to the LXX. The Hebrew has D237, of your king, ü.e. 
your idol. The LXX. puts instead of this the name of the idol, either as 
explanatory or more probably as following another reading.“ 6 Moddéy, 
Hebrew on (Rex), called also p57 and Dan, was an idol of the 
Ammonites, to whom children were offered, and to whom afterwards even 
the Israelites ° sacrificed children. His brazen image was, according to 
Rabbinical tradition,° especially according to Jarchi on Jer. vii. 31, bollow, 
heated from below, with the head of an ox and outstretched arms, into 
which the children were laid, whose cries were stifled by the sacrificing 
priests with the beating of drums. The question whether Moloch corre- 
sponds to Kronos or Saturn, or is to be regarded as the god of the sun,” is 


Kai): 


1 According to another view, the period of 
forty years without offerings appears in the 
prophet as the ‘‘golden age of Israel,” and as 
a proof how little God cares for such offer- 
ings. See Ewald, Proph. in loc. 

2 As by Morus, Rosenmüller, Heinrichs, 
Olshausen, similarly Kuinoel. 

3 Ad Mare. p. 65 f. 


4 0559, comp. LXX. 2 Kings xxiii. 13. 


5 Whether the children were burned alive, 
or first put to death, might seem doubtful 
from such passages as Ezek. xx. 26,31. But 
the burning alive must be assumed according 


to the notices preserved concerning the Car- 
thaginian procedure at such sacrifices of 
children (see Knobel on Ley. xviii. 21).—The 
extravagant assertion that the worship of 
Moloch was the orthodox primitive worship 
of the Hebrews (Vatke, Daumer, Ghillany), 
was a folly of 1835-42. Lev. xviii. 21, xx. 2; 
1 Kings xi. 7; 2 Kings xxiii. 10; Jer. vii. 31. 

6° Comp. the description, agreeing in the 
main, of the image of Kronos in Diod. Sic. 
ER AE 

7 Theophylact, Spencer, Deyling, and oth- 
ers, including Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Olshausen, 
Miinter, Creuzer. 


THE TABERNACLE OF WITNESS. ala 


settled for our passage to this extent, that, as here by Moloch and Rephan 
two different divinities from the host of heaven must be meant, and Rephan 
corresponds to Kronos, the view of Moloch as god of the sun receives thereby 
a confirmation, however closely the mythological idea of Kronos was origi- 
nally related to the notion of a solar deity ' and consequently also to that of 
Moloch. See, moreover, for Moloch as god of the sun, Miiller in Herzog’s 
Encykl.?—kai 70 dorpov rov Heov bu. "Pepav] and the star (star-image) of your (al- 
leged) god Rephan, i.e. the star made the symbol of your god Rephan. ‘Peoav 
is the Coptic name of Saturn, as Kircher * has proved from the great Egyp- 
tian Scala. The ancient Arabs, Phoenicians, and Egyptians gave divine 


honours to the planet Saturn ; and in particular the Arabic name of this 
eS Jer 


star, whys, corresponds entirely to the Hebrew form }?"2,* which the LXX. 


translators ° have expressed by Rephan, the Coptic name of Saturn known 
to them.°—We may add, that there is no account in the Pentateuch of the 
worship of Moloch and Rephan in the desert ; yet the former is forbidden 
in Lev. xviii. 21, xx. 2; Deut. xviii. 10. It is probable, however, that from 
this very fact arose a tradition, which the LXX. followed in Amos, l.c.— 
Tove rumovc] apposition to 77V oKyv. tT. MoA. x. r. dotp. T. Peov tu. ‘Ped. It 
includes a reference to the tent of Moloch, in so far as the image of the 
idol was to be found in it and was carried along with it. For examples in 
which the context gives to rizoc the definite sense of idol, see Kypke, I. 
p- 38, and from Philo, Loesner, p. 192. — éréxewva] beyond Babylon. Only 
here in the N. T., but often in classic writers. — Baßvi.] LXX.: Aauacxoi, 
so also in Hebrew. An extension in accordance with history, as similar 
modifications were indulged in by the Rabbins ; see Lightfoot, p. 75 

Ver. 44. 'H cxyv7 Tov wapr.] not a contrast to ver. 43, for the bringing out 
of the culpability, *‘ hie ostendit Steph., non posse ascribi culpam Deo,”’ 
Calvin, comp. Olshausen and de Wette, which there is nothing to indicate ; 
but after the giving of the law (ver. 38) and after the described back- 
sliding and its punishment (vv. 39-43), Stephen now commences the new 
section of his historical development,—that of the tabernacle and of the 
temple,—as he necessarily required this for the subsequent disclosure of the 


1 Comp. Preller, Griech. Mythol. I. p. 42 f. 

2 1X. p. 716 f. 

3 Lingua Aeg. restituta, p. 49, 527. 

4 See Winer, Realw. II. p. 387, and generally 
Müller in Herzog’s Zneykl. XU. p. 738. 

5 In general, the L.XX. has dealt very freely 
with this passage. The original text runs 
according to the customary rendering: and 
ye carried the tent of your king and the frame 
MD of your images, the star of your divinity, 
which ye made for yourselves. See Hitzig in 
loc. ; Gesenius, 7’hes. II. p. 669. The LXX. 
took > which is to be derived from > as 
a er name (‘Pedav), and transposed the 
words as if there stood in the Hebrew o> joy} 
DJ‘ TON 2 2313. Moreover, it is to be 
observed that the words of the original may 


be taken also as ‚future, as a threat of punish- 
ment (E. Meier, Ewald): so shall ye take up 
the tent (Ewald: the pole) of your king and 
the platform of your images, etc. According * 
to this, the fugitives are conceived as taking on 
their backs the furniture of their gods, and 
carrying them from one place of refuge to 
another. This view corresponds best with the 
connection in the prophet ; and in the threat 
is implicd at the same time the accusation, 
which Düsterdieck in the Stud. u. Krit. 1849, 
p. 910, feels the want of, on which account he 
takes it as present (but ye carry, etc.).— The 
speech of Stephen, as we have it, simply follows 
the LXX. 

® See Movers, Phönicier, I. p. 289 f., Müller, 
tc: 


154 CHAP, VII., 45-51. 


guilt of his opponents precisely in respect to this important point of charge. 
— The Hebrew UP Ons means tent of meeting, of God with his people, 
i.e. tent of revelation, not tent of the congregation,’ but is in the LXX., 
which the Greek form of this speech follows, incorrectly rendered by 
a) oKnvy TOU uaprvpiov, the tent in which God bears witness of Himself, as if 
derived from W, a witness. For the description of this tabernacle, see Ex. 
XXV.—XXVil. — xaTd Tov Tizov bv éwp.] See Ex. xxv. 9, 40.? 

Ver 45. Which also our fathers with Joshua—in connection with Joshua, 
under whose guidance they stood—ajter having received it from Moses, 
brought in to Canaan. dıad£xeoda:, only here in the N. T., denotes the 
taking over from a former possessor.* — év tH karaoy£oeı TOV Edvov] karaoxeoıc, 
as in ver. 5, possessio.* But év is not to be explained as put for eic, nor is 
karaoysoıc Tov &0vov taking possession of the land of the Gentiles, as is 
generally held, which is not expressed. Rather: the fathers brought in 
the tabernacle of the covenant during the possession of the Gentiles, i.e. while 
the Gentiles were in the state of possession. To this, then, siguficantly corre- 
sponds what further follows: ov éwcev 6 Beöc x.7.A. But of what the Gen- 
tiles were at that time possessors, is self-evident from eioyyayov—namely, of 
the Holy Land, to which the eic in eioyyay. refers according to the history 
well known to the hearers. — arö rpooorov r. 7. ju.]| away from the face of 
our fathers, so that they withdrew themselves by flight from their view.°— 
Euc Tov yu. A.] is to be separated from the parenthetic clause av éfwcev . . . 
nuov, and to be joined to the preceding: which our fathers brought in... 
until the days of David, so that it remained in Canaan until the time of 
David inclusively. Kuinoel attaches it to év &£woev «.r.A. ; for until the 
time of David the struggle with the inhabitants of Canaan lasted. This is 
in opposition to the connection, in which the important point was the dura- 
tion of the tabernacle-service, as the sequel, paving the way for the tran- 
sition to the real temple, shows; with David the new epoch of worship 
begins to dawn. 

Vv. 46, 47. Kai nrioaro] and asked, namely, confiding in the grace of 
God, which he experienced, Luke i. 30. The channel of this request, only 
indirectly expressed by David, and of the answer of God to it, was Nathan. °® 
What is expressed in Ps. cxxxii. 2 ff. is a later retrospective reference to it. 
See Ewald on the Psalm. This probably floated before the mind of Stephen, 
hence oxyvona and eipeiv. The usual interpretation of „ryoaro: optabat, 
desiderabat, is incorrect; for the fact, that the LXX. Deut. xiv. 16 ex- 
presses Ssxw by Zridoueiv, has nothing at all to do with the linguistic use of 
aitovmat. — ebpeiv oxyvoua TO Oe@ ’Iar.] i.e. to obtain the establishment of a 
dwelling-place destined for the peculiar god of Jacob. In the old theo- 
cratic designation ro Oe ’Iaxé3, instead of the bare aire, lies the holy 


1 See Ewald, Alterth. p. 167. 4LXX., Apocr., Joseph., Vulgate, Calvin, 
2 Comp. Heb. viii. 5, and thereon Liinemann Grotius, Kuinoel, and others. 

and Delitzsch, p. 337 f. 5 Comp. LXX. Ex. xxxiv. 24; Deut. xi. 23. 
34 Macc. iv. 15; Dem. 1218, 23. 1045, 10; On the aorist form &£woa, from e£&wdeiv, see 

Polyb. ii. 4. 7; xxxi. 12.7; Lucian. Dial. M. Winer, p. 86 (E. T. 111). 

xi. 3. 6 2 Sam. vii. 2; 1 Chron. xviii. 1. 


THE TEMPLE AND THE PROPHETS. 155 


national motive for the request of David; on oxyvoua applied to the temple 
at Jerusalem, comp. 3 Esdr. i. 50, and to a heathen temple, Pausan. iii. 17. 
6, where it is even the name. Observe how David, in the humility of his 
request, designates the temple, which he has in view, only generally as 
oxyvoua, Whereas the continuation of the narrative, ver. 47, has the definite 
olxov. —Stephen could not but continue the historical thread of his discourse 
precisely down to the building of Solomon's temple, because he was accused of 
blasphemy against the temple. 

Vv. 48-50. Nevertheless this @xoddu. aurö olkov (ver, 47) is not to be 
misused, as if the presence of the Most High—observe the emphatic pre- 
fixing of 6 tiyoroc, in which lies a tacit contrast of Him who is enthroned 
in the highest heavens to heathen gods—were bound to the temple! The 
temple-worship, as represented by the priests and hierarchs, ran only too 
much into such a misuse.'— yerporoijroic] neuter : in something which is made 
by hands, xvii. 24.7 — Vv. 49, 50 contain Isa. Ixvi. 1, 2, slightly deviating 
from the LXX. — 6 ovpavöc . . . roddv uov] a poetically moulded expression 
of the idea: heaven and earth I fill with my all-ruling presence.” Thus there 
cannot be for God any place of His rest (rér. rjc kararavc.), any abode of 
rest to be assigned to Him, — oikodounoere] The future used of any possible 
future case. Baur’ and Zeller have wrongly found in these verses a disap- 
proving judgment as to the building of the temple, the effect of which had 
been to render the worship rigid ; holding also what was above said of the 
tabernacle—that it was made according to the pattern seen by Moses—as 
meant to disparage the temple, the building of which is represented as “a 
corruption of the worship of God in its own nature free, bound to no fixed 
place and to no rigid external rites’’ (Zeller). Such thoughts are read 
between the lines not only quite arbitrarily, but also quite erroneously, as 
is evident from ver. 46, according to which the building of Solomon ap- 
pears as fulfilment of the prayer of David, who had found favour with God.® 
The prophetical quotation corresponds entirely to the idea of Solomon 
himself, 1 Kings viii. 27. The quotation of the prophetic saying was, 
moreover, essentially necessary for Stephen, because in it the Messianic ref- 
ormation, which he must have preached, had its divine warrant in reference 
to the temple-worship. 

Ver. 51. The long-restrained direct offensive now breaks out, as is quite 
in keeping with the position of matters brought to this point. This 
against Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Olshausen, and others, who quite arbitrarily 
suppose that after ver. 50 an interruption took place, either by the 
shouts of the hearers, or at least by their threatening gestures; as well 
as against Schwanbeck, p. 252, who sees here ‘‘ an omission of the reporter.”’ 
Stephen has in ver. 50 ended his calm and detailed historical narrative. 
And now it is time that the accused should become the bold accuser, and 
at length throw in the face of his judges the result, the thoughts forming 


1 Comp. John iv. 20 ff. u. Krit. 1855, p. 528 ff., concurred, ascribing to 
2 Comp. LXX. Isa. xvi. 12; 2 Chron. vi. 18. Stephen a view akin to Essenism. 
3 Comp. Matt. v. 84; 1 Kings viii. 27, 5 Comp. 1 Kings viii. 24. 


4 With whom Schneckenburger in the Stud. ® Comp. Baur, I. p.58, ed. 2; Ewald, p. 213. 


156 CHAP. VII, 2-56. 

which were already clearly enough to be inferred from the previous his- 
torical course of the speech. Therefore he breaks off his calm, measured 
discourse, and falls upon his judges with deep moral indignation, like a 
reproving prophet : Ye stiff-necked ! etc. — arepiru. tq kapd. x. Tr. Ooiv] an up- 
braiding of them with their unconverted carnal character, in severe contrast 
to the Jewish pride of circumcision, The meaning without figure is: Men 
whose management of their inner life, and whose spiritual perception, are 
heathenishly rude, without moral refinement, not open for the influence of the 
divine Spirit.’ — ineic] with weighty emphasis. — dei] always; even yet at 
this day !— ec oi marépec vuov kat tbyeic] se. del TO mv. ay. avrır. 3 for the 
fathers are thought of in their resistance to God and to the vehicles of His 
Spirit,and therefore not the bare £or£ is to be supplied.?—The term ävrırirreiv, 
not occurring elsewhere in the N. T., is here chosen as a strong designation.® 
Bengel well puts it: ‘in adversum ruitis.”’ 

Ver. 52. Proof of the oc oi rarépec buov Kal, also, iueic. — kai arekr.] kai is 
the climactic even ; they have even killed them.* The characteristic more 
special designation of the prophets: tov¢ mpoxarayyeiiavrac x.T.A., augments 
the guilt. — roi dixaiov] Kar’ éEoyqv of Jesus, the highest messenger of God, 
the (ideal) Just One.” Contrast to the relative clause that follows. — viv] 
in the present time, opposed to the times of the fathers ; öueic is emphatically 
placed over against the latter as a parallel. — xpodéra] betrayers (Luke vi. 
16), inasmuch as the Sanhedrists, by false and crafty accusation and con- 
demnation, delivered Jesus over to the Roman tribunal and brought Him 
to execution. 

Ver. 53. Oirwec] quippe qui. Stephen desires, namely, now to give the 
character, through which the foregoing od viv iueic mpodöraı k.T.A., as founded 
on their actually manifested conduct, receives its explanation. — i2aBere] 
ye have received, placed first with emphasis. — eic dıarayäac ayyéAwv| upon ar- 
rangements with angels, i.e. so that the arrangements made by angels, the 
direct servants of God, which accompanied the promulgation of the law, 
made you perceive the obligation to recognise and observe the received 
law—comp. the contrast, x. oi« éovaaé.—as the ethical aspect of your éAaBere. 
Brietly, therefore: Ye received the law with reference to arrangements of 
angels, which could not leave you doubtful that you ought to submit obediently to 
the divine institution. — cic denotes, as often in Greek writers and in the N. 
T.,’ the direction of the mind, in view of.° — dıarayn is arrangement, regula- 


tion, as in Rom. xiii. 2, 


with Greek writers dıarafıc.” 


At variance with 


linguistic usage, Beza, Calvin, Piscator, Elsner, Hammond, Wolf, Krause, 


1 Comp. Lev. xxvi. 41 ; Deut. x. 16, xxx. 6; 
SEL Lvs Anil 7x2: ERom. 1. 25: 29): 
Barnabas, Zp.9; Philo, de migrat. Abr. I. p. 
450 ; and from the Rabbins, Schoettgen in loc. 

2 With Beza and Bornemann in the Sächs. 
Stud. 1842, p. 72. 

3 Comp. Polrb. iii.. 19. 5: avremerav tais 
omeipaıs KatamAnktik@s. Num. xxvi. 14; 
Herodian. vi. 3. 13. 

4 Comp. on this reproach, Luke xi. 47. 


5 iii. 14, xxii. 14: 1 Pet. iii. 18; 1 Johnii. 1. 

6 Angels were the arrangers of the act of 
divine majesty, as arrangers of a festival 
(Statacoortes), dispositores. 

7 Winer, p. 371 (E. T. 496). 

8 Comp. here especially, Matt. xii. 41 ; Rom, 
iv. 20. 

° Comp. also Ezra iv. 11;.and see Suicer, 
Thes. I. p. 886. On the subject-matter, comp. 
Gal. iii. 19; Heb. ii. 2; Delitzsch on Heb. p. 49. 


MARTYRDOM OF STEPHEN. 157 
Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and others, taking dıarayy in the above signification, 
render : accepistis legem ab angelis promulgatam, as if eic stood for év. 
Others—Grotius, Calovius, Er. Schmid, Valckenaer, and others—explain 
dıarayn as agmen dispositum, because Jdıaracoeıv is often, also in the classics, 
used of the drawing up of armies,’ and dıarasıc of the divisions of an army,? 
and translate praesentibus angelorum ordinibus, so that eic is likewise taken 
for &v. But against this view, with which, moreover, eic would have to be 
taken as respectu, there is the decisive fact, that there is no evidence of the 
use of dıarayy in the sense assumed ; and therefore the supposition that 
dıarayn = dıarafıc in this signification is arbitrary, as well as at variance with 
the manifest similarity of the thought with Gal. iii. 19. Bengel? renders : 
Ye received the law for commands of angels, i.e. as commands of angels, so 
that eic is to be understood as in ver. 21.* But the Israelites did not 
receive the law as the commands of angels, but as the commands of God, 
in which character it was made known to them dr ayy&Aov.°—Moreover, 
the mediating action of the angels not admitting of more precise defini- 
tion, which is here adverted to, is not contained in Ex. xix., but rests 
on tradition, which is imported already by the LXX. into Deut. xxxiii. 2. 
Comp. on Gal. iii. 19.° It was a mistaken attempt at harmonizing, when 
earlier expositors sought to understand by the angels either Moses and the 
prophets’ or the seniores populi ;* indeed, Chrysostom even discovers here 
again the angel in the bush. 

Vv. 54-56. Taira] The reproaches uttered in vv. 51-53. — dıerp. raic kapd.] 
see on v. 33. — Eßpuxov 7. odövr.] they gnashed their teeth, from rage and 
spite.° — én’ auröv] against him. — np. xveiu.] which at this very moment 
filled and exalted him with special power, iv. 8. — eic rov ovupavov] like 
Jesus, John xvii. 1. The eye of the suppliant looks everywhere toward, 
heaven,” and what he beheld he saw in the spirit (xAjp. xvebu. ayiov) ; he only 
and not the rest present in the room. — roüc oupavovc]) up to the highest." 
— döFav Ozov] WT VAD: the brightness in which God appears.’? — éordra} 
Why not sitting ?* He beheld Jesus, as He has raised Himself from God's 
throne of light and stands ready for the saving reception of the martyr. 
Comp. ver. 59. The prophetic basis of this vision in the soul of Stephen 
is Dan. vii. 13 f. Chrysostom erroneously holds that it is a testimony of 
the resurrection of Christ. Rightly Oecumenius : iva dei£n ryv avriAnwu tiv 
eic auröv. Comp. Bengel: ‘‘ quasi obvium Stephano.’’ De Wette finds no 
explanation satisfactory, and prefers to leave it unexplained ; while Borne- 


12 Macc. xii. 20. 

2 Judith i. 4, viii. 36. 

3 Comp. Hackett, F. Nitzsch, also Winer 
doubtfully, and Buttmarn, 

4 Comp. Heb. xi. 8. 

5Comp. Joseph. Antt. xv. 5. 3: 


kaAlıcra Tov dboyuarwv Kal Ta ooLwrara TOY ev 


MOV Ta 


Tots vouots Se’ ayyeAwy Tapa Tov Ocod maddvTwr ; 
and see Krebs in loc. 

® For Rabbinical passages (Jalkut Rubenif. 
107, 3, al.), see Schoettgen and Wetstein ad 


Gal. iii. 19. 

7 Heinrichs, Lightfoot. 

§ Surenhusius, karaAA. p. 419. 

* Comp. Archias, 12: Bpvxwyv Unkrov odovra, 
Hermipp. quoted in Plut. Pevicl.33 ; Job xvi. 
9% Bas SEXY OR KVU. nen 

10 Comp. on John xvii. 1. 

11 Comp. Matt, iii. 16. 
Actsx. 11. 

12 See on ver. 2. Luke ii. 9. 

13 Matt. xxvi. 64; Mark xvi. 19, al. 


It is otherwise in 


158 CHAP. VII, 57-60. 


mann!is disposed only to find in it the idea of morandi et ewistendi,? as » 
formerly Beza and Knapp, Ser. var. arg. —eide] is to be apprehended as 
mental seeing in ecstasy. Only of Stephen himself is this seeing related ; 
and when he, like an old prophet,* gives utterance to what he saw, the 
rage of his adversaries—who therefore had seen nothing, but recognised in 
this declaration mere blasphemy—reaches its highest pitch, and breaks out 
in tumultuary fashion. The views of Michaelis and Eckermann, that 
Stephen had only expressed his firm conviction of the glory of Christ and 
of his own impending admission into heaven ; and the view of Hezel,* that 
he had seen a dazzling cloud as a symbol of the presence of God,—convert 
his utterance at this lofty moment into a flourish of rhetoric. According 
to Baur, the author's own view of this matter has objectivized itself into a 
vision, just as in like manner vi. 15 is deemed unhistorical. —eide . . . 
flewpa| he saw . . . I behold.” As to 6 vide 7. avOp., the Messianic designa- 
tion in accordance with Dan. vii. 13, see on Matt. viii. 20. 

Vv. 57, 58. The tumult, now breaking out, is to be conceived as pro- 
ceeding from the Sanhedrists, but also extending to all the others who 
were present (vi. 12). To the latter pertains especially what is related from 
jpuyoav onward. — They stopped their ears, because they wished to hear 
nothing more of the blasphemous utterances. — éfw tic téAewc] see Ley. 
xxiv. 14. ‘‘Locus lapidationis erat extra urbem ; omnes enim civitates, 
muris cinctae, paritatem habent ad castra Israelis.’’ ° — 2AıBoß6Aovv] This 
is the fact generally stated. Then follows as a special circumstance, the 
activity of the witnesses in it. Observe that, as auröv is not expressed with 
éAfo3.,’ the preceding éx’ auröv is to be extended to it, and therefore to be 
mentally supplied.* — oi uäprupec] The same who had testified ‘at vi. 13. 
A fragmeut of legality! for the witnesses against the condemned had, 
according to law, to cast the first stones at him.’ — aréGevro ra iuaria avrov] 
Gare eivar Kovgot Kai amaparödıcror eic TO ALOoBodAciv, Theophylact. — Yavdov] 
So distinguished and zealous a disciple of the Pharisees—who, however, 
ought neither to have been converted into the ‘‘ notarial witness,’’ nor even 
into the representative of the court conducting the trial (Sepp)—was for 
such a’ service quite as ready (xxii. 20) as he was welcome. But if Saul 
had been married or already a young widower (Ewald,) which does not 
follow from 1 Cor. vii. 7, 8, Luke, who knew so exactly and had in view 
the circumstances of his life, would hardly have called him veaviac, although 
this denotes a degree of age already higher than pecpdaxiov.° Comp. xx. 9, 
xxiii. 17, also v. 10 ; Luke vii. 14. — kai 2%.d0ß6Aovv) not merely the witnesses, 
but generally. The repetition has a tragie effect, which is further strength- 
ened by the appended contrast örırad. x.r.2. A want of clearness, occa- 
sioned by the use of two documents (Bleek), is not discernible. — The 


I In the Sächs. Stud. 1842, p. 73 f. 7 Which Bornemann has added, following 
2 Lobeck, ad\Aj. 199. D and vss. 

3 Comp. John xii. 41. 8 Comp. LXX. Ex. xxiii. 47. 

4 Following older commentators, in Wolf. ® Deut. xvii. 7; Sanhedr. vi. 4. 

5 See Tittmann’s Synon. pp. 116, 120. 10 Lobeck, ad P’hryn. p. 213. 


6 Gloss in Babyl. Sanhedr. f. 42. 2. 


STEPHEN’S DEATH, 159 


stoning, which as the punishment of blasphemy was inflicted on Stephen, 
seeing that no formal sentence preceded it, and that the execution had to 
be confirmed and carried out on the part of the Roman authorities,’ is to 
be regarded as an illegal act of the tumultuary outbreak. Similarly, the 
murder of James the Just, the Lord’s brother, took place at a later period. 
The less the limits of such an outbreak can be defined, and the more the 
calm historical course of the speech of Stephen makes it easy to understand 
that the Sanhedrists should have heard him quietly up to, but not beyond, 
the point of their being directly attacked (ver. 51 ff), so much the less 
warrantable is it, with Baur and Zeller, to esteem nothing further as his- 
torical, than that Stephen fell “as victim of a popular tumult suddenly 
arising on occasion of his lively public controversial discussions,’’ without 
any proceedings in the Sanhedrim, which are assumed to be the work of 
the author. 

Vv. 59, 60. ’Excxatobyuevov] while he was invoking. Whom? is evident 
from the address which follows. — kipce ’Inoov] both to be taken as vocatives, * 
according to the formal expression «ipio¢g "Inoovc,* with which the apostolic 
church designates Jesus as the exalted Lord, not only of His church, but 
of the world, in the government of which He is installed as ou»Apovoc of 
the Father by His exaltation (Phil. ii. 6 ff.), until the final completion of 
His office.° Stephen invoked Jesus; for he had just beheld Him standing 
ready to help him. As to the invocation of Christ generally, relative 
worship, conditioned by the relation of the exalted Christ to the Father.® 
— déFat 7) Treva wov| namely, to thee in heaven until the future resurrection.” 
‘¢ Feeisti me victorem, recipe me in triumphum,’’ Augustine. — owvn weyaAn] 
the last expenditure of his strength of love, the fervour of which also dis- 
closes itself in the kneeling. — un ornonc avroic r. duapt. tavT.] fix not this sin 
(of my murder) wpon them. This negative expression corresponds quite to 
the positive : agı&var ryv auapriav, to let the sin go as regards its relation of 
guilt, instead of fixing it for punishment.* The notion, ‘‘ to make availing 
(de Wette), i.e. to impute, corresponds to the thought, but is not denoted 
by the word. Linguistically correct is also the rendering: ‘ weigh not this 
sin to them,’’ as to which the comparison of Opw is not needed.’ In this 
view the sense would be: Determine not the weight of the sin (comp. 
xxv. 7), consider not how heavy it is. But our explanation is to be pre- 
ferred, because it corresponds more completely to the prayer of Jesus, 
Luke xxiii. 34, which is evidently the pattern of Stephen in his request, 
only saying negatively what that expresses positively. In the case of such 


1 Luke xxiv. 16; Sanhedr. vii. 4. 4 Gersdorf, Beitr. p. 292 ff. 

2 Ewald supposes that the Sanbedrim might 5 1 Cor. xv. 28; comp. x. 36. 
have appealed to the permission granted to 6 See on Rom. x. 12; 1 Cor. i. 2; Phil. ii. 10. 
them by Pilate in John xviii. 31. But so 7 Comp. on Phil. i. 26, remark. 
much is not implied in John xviii. 31; see in 8 Comp. Rom. x. 3; Ecclus. xliv. 21, 22; 
loc. And ver. 57 sufficiently shows how far 1 Macc. xiii. 38, xiv. 28, xv. 4, dl. 
from ‘‘ calmly and legally *' matters proceeded ® Matt. xxvi. 15; Plat. Zim. p. 63 B, Prot. 
at the execution. See Joseph. Antt. xx. 9.1, p. 356 B, Pol. x. p. 602 D; Xen. Cyr. viii. 2. 
and on John xviii. 31. 21; Valcken. Diair. p. 288 A. 


3 Rev. xxii. 20. 


160 CHAP. VII. —NOTES. 


as Saul what was asked took place." In the similarity of the last words of 
Stephen, ver. 59 with Luke xxiii. 34, 40, as also of the words d££aı 76 rv. 
wov with Luke xxiii. 46, Baur, with whom Zeller agrees, sees an indication 
of their unhistorical character ; as if the example of the dying Jesus might 
not have sufficiently suggested itself to the first martyr, and proved 
sufficient motive for him to die with similar love and self-devotion.— 
éxorun0n| ** lagubre verbum et suave,’’ Bengel ; on account of the euphemistie 
nature of the word, never used of the dying of Christ. See on 1 Cor. 
xv. 18. 


NOTES BY AMERICAN EDITOR. 


(x) Stephen’s speech. V. 2. 


‘Opinions are divided concerning this speech of Stephen. Some regard 
it as inconclusive, illogical, and full of errors ; others praise it as a complete 
refutation of the charges brought against him, and as worthy of the fulness 
of the Spirit with which he was inspired.’’ “It is to be observed that the 
speech of Stephen is an unfinished production. He was interrupted before 
he came to a conclusion. We are therefore to regard it as in a measure 
imperfect.’’ ‘‘It bears, in its nature and contents, the impress of authen- 
ticity.” (@loag.) 

“The speaker’s main object may be considered as twofold : first, to show 
that the charge against him rested on a false view of the ancient dispensation ; 
and secondly, that the Jews, instead of manifesting a true zeal for the temple 
and the law, in their opposition to the gospel, were again acting out the unbe- 
lieving, rebellious spirit which Jed their fathers so often to resist the will of 
God and reject his favors.’’ ‘‘ Stephen pursues the order of time in his nar- 
rative ; and it is important to mark that feature of the discourse, because it 
explains two peculiarities in it ; first, that the ideas which fall logically under 
the two heads that have been mentioned are intermixed instead of being pre- 
sented separately ; and secondly, that some circumstances are introduced 
which we are not to regard as significant, but as serving merely to maintain the 
connection of the history.” ‘It may be added that the peculiar character of 
the speech impresses upon it a seal of authenticity.” (//acieett.) 

Stephen ‘‘ commenced this defence with great calm and dignity, choosing as 
his theme a subject which he knew would command the attention and win the 
deep interest of his audience. It was the story of the chosen people, told with 
the warm, bright eloquence of one not only himself an ardent patriot, but also 
a trained orator and scholar. He dwelt on the famous national heroes, with 
rare skill, bringing out particular events in their lives, and showing how, not- 
withstanding the fact that they had been sent by God, they had been again 
and again rejected by the chosen people.” “What a magnificent conception, 
in the eyes of a child of Israel, were those instances of the lifework of Joseph 
and Moses, both God-sent regenerators of the loved people, both in their turn 
too rejected and misunderstood by those with whom their mission lay, but jus- 
tified and glorified by the unanimous voice of history, which has surrounded 


1 Comp. Oecumenius. 


NOTES. 161 


the men and their work with a halo of glory, growing only brighter as the cen- 
turies have multiplied! Might it not be the same with that Great One who 
had done such mighty works, and spoken such glorious words, but whom they 
had rejected and crucified ?”’ (Howson, Acts.) 


(z) Historical errors. VY. 3. 


The historical allusions in the speech of Stephen in some respects differ 
from O. T. history; as to the time of Abraham’s call, the time of Terah’s 
death, the length of the sojourn in Egypt, the number of souls in Jacob’s 
household, the purchase of the sepulchre, and the place of burial of the 
patriarchs. These variations or additions, which may either be fairly rec- 
onciled, or, at least, are of such a nature that were some fact known of which 
we are not informed all might be harmonized, our author unhappily char- 
acterizes as ‘‘errors,”’ “ historical mistakes,’’ ‘historical errors,” ‘‘ mistakes,” 
etc. In reference to all such apparent discrepancies two things should be 
borne in mind: first, Stephen, though “full of faith and power,” was not 
an inspired teacher in the strict sense of the word ; so that, provided we have 
a true record of his discourse, it may contain an error of statement, or a ques- 
tionable date, and yet the accuracy of the sacred historian remain unimpeach- 
able ; and second, allowance should be made for the possible errors of copy- 
ists, specially with regard to numbers. Most of such difficulties, however, 
have been satisfactorily removed. Surely, in any view of the case, it is rash 
to assume that men of average culture and information, not to say such men of 
education and intelligence as Stephen and Luke unquestionably were, would 
be ignorant of the facts recorded in the sacred books, which had been their 
constant study. Nor need we suppose a speaker or writer likely to make erro- 
neous statements, which a reference to the book of Genesis would at once have 
corrected, or to which even the audience addressed would at once have 
objected. 


(A!) Abraham’s call. V. 3. 


“The discrepancy is only apparent. It would appear from the sacred 
narrative that Abraham was twice called: once in Ur of the Chaldees, and 
afterwards at Haran.” ‘‘To this solution of the difficulty Meyer objects 
that the verbal quotation from Gen. xii. 1 proves that Stephen had in view 
no other cull than that mentioned in this passage. But, on the one hand, 
it is not surprising either that the call should be repeated to Abraham in 
nearly the sume words, or that Stephen should apply the well-known words 
found in Gen. xii. 1 to the earlier call. And, on the other hand, the 
words are not precisely the same ; for here there is no mention of a departure 
from his father’s house, as there is when God called Abraham at Haran. When 
Abraham removed from Ur of the Chaldees he did not depart from his father’s 
house, for Terah, his father, accompanied him ; but when he removed from 
Haran he left Terah, if he were yet alive, and his brother Nahor ” (Gloag.) 

“It is a perversion of the text to suppose Stephen so ignorant of the geogra- 
phy here, as to place Canaan on the west of the Euphrates, His meaning evi- 
dently is that Abraham’s call in that city was not the first which he received 
during his residence in Mesopotamia.” (Hackett.) 


162 CHAP. VII. —NOTES. 


(B') Death of Terah. V.4. 


‘But this apparent disagreement admits of a ready solution, if we suppose 
that Abram was not the oldest son, but that Haran, who died before the 
first migration of the family, was sixty years older than he, and that Terah, 
consequently, was one hundred and thirty years old at the birth of Abraham. 
The relation of Abraham to the Hebrew history would account for his being 
named first in the genealogy.” (Hackett.) 

‘““ The most probable explanation is that Abraham was the youngest son of 
Terah, and was not born until Terah was one hundred and thirty years old.” 
( Gloag.) 


(c!) Four hundred years. YV. 6. 


“The exact number of years, as we elsewhere learn, was four hundred 
and thirty. A round sum is here given, without taking into account the 
broken number.’’ “At first sight the words in the Mosaic narrative would 
seem to intimate that this was the period of Egyptian bondage ; but Paul 
understands it differently. He reckons four hundred and thirty years as 
extending from the call of Abraham to the giving of the law.’ (Gloag.) A 
solution is “that the four hundred and thirty years in Ex. xii. 40 embraces 
the period from Abraham’s immigration into Canaan until the departure out 
of Egypt, and that the sacred writers call this the period of sojourn or servi- 
tude in Egypt. ” ( Hackett.) 


(D!) Jacob’s burial and Abraham's purchase. V. 16. 


«With respect to the concurrence or accumulation of supposed inaccu- 
racies in this one verse, so far from proving one another, they only aggravate 
the improbability of real errors having been committed, in such quick succes- 
sion, and then gratuitously left on record, when they might have been so 
easily corrected and expunged.’’ (Alexander.) 

Many critics, including our author, have given up all attempts at reconcilia- 
tion, and simply assume that Stephen, in the excitement of the occasion, has 
made a mistake which Luke did not feel at liberty to correct. It is a very easy 
way to dispose of the difficulty, to say that Stephen made a mistake ; but it is 
not so easy to account for sueh a man, before such an audience, publicly stat- 
ing what must have been known by many of them not to be in harmony with 
well-known facts of their history ; and further, that it should have been recorded 
by such a historian, and remain without either correction or objection for many 
generations. Surely if conjectural emendation is ever admissible in an ap- 
proved text, it would be justifiable here ; and very slight alterations indeed 
would eliminate the difficulty. Calvin says,“ It is plain that a mistake has been 
made in the name of Abraham.’’ The following reading has been suggested, 
which requires only that an ellipsis be supplied: ‘“And were carried into 
Sychem, and were laid, some of them, Jacob at least, in the sepulchre that 
Abraham bought for a sum of money ; and others of them in that bought from 
the sons of Emmor, the father of Sychem.” The sketch is drawn with great 
brevity, and the facts greatly compressed, doubtless clearly apprehended 
by those to whom they were stated, though not easy to disentangle and ar- 


NOTES. 163 


range now. It seems as rash as it is unnecessary, in view of all the eircum- 
stances, to charge either the orator or the historian with inaccuracy or mis- 
statement, in this address, N 


(z!) Cast out... children. V. 19. 


“Meyer thinks we have here the construction of the infinitive of purpose : 
he oppressed them in order to make them so desperate as to destroy their own 
children. But such a meaning does not suit the context, and is grammati- 
cally unnecessary. In Hellenistic Greek the indication of the purpose is often 
changed to that of the result. The reference is to the command of Pharaoh, 
given to the Egyptians, that they should cast out all the male infants of the 
Israelites into the Nile.” (Gloag, also Hackett and Lange.) 

“ Better—in causing their young children to be cast out. The words are rather a 
description of what the Egyptian king did in his tyranny, than of what the Is- 
raelites were driven to by their despair.” (Plumptre.) 


(Fr!) An angel. Y. 30. 


There is a division of opinion as to whether this was a created angel, or 
the angel of Jehovah—the messenger of the covenant—the second person of 
the Godhead, even then appearing as the revealer of the Father. Our author, 
with others, adopts the former opinion, while Hackett, Alexander, Abbott, 
Barnes, Jacobus, with Alford, adopt the latter view, in support of which 
Gloag says : “ The Mosaic narrative isin favor of the latter view. The Angel of 
the bush who guided the Israelites in the wilderness is in the O. T. frequently 
identified with God ; and here he appropriates to himself the titles of the 
Supreme Being, for speaking out of the bush he says, ‘J am the God of Abraham, 
and of Isaac, and of Jacob.’ ” 


164 CRITICAL REMARKS. 


CHAPTER VIII. - 


Ver. 1. mävrec re] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read ravrec dé, according to BC DE 
H, min. Vulg. Copt. al., and several Fathers. A, min. Syr. Aeth. have ré; N* 
has only ravtec; N** has xai m. The dé has the preponderance of testimony, 
and is therefore to be adopted, as also in ver, 6. — Ver. 2. &moınoavru] Lachm. 
and Born. read Zroinoav, according to decisive testimony. — Ver. 5. röAı] 
Lachm. reads ryv möiw, after ABN, 31, 40. More precise definition of the 
capital. — Ver. 7. moAAdv] Lachm. reads zoddAoi,! and afterwards &önpxovro, 
following ABC E NS, min. Vulg. Sahid. Syr. utr. ; éS7pyovro is also in D, which, 
however, reads wvAAoic (by the second hand: ard moAAoic). Accordingly é&jp- 
xovro, as decisively attested, is to be considered genuine (with Born. and 
Tisch.), from which it necessarily follows that Luke cannot have written 
moAAoi (which, on the contrary, was mechanically introduced from the second 
elause of the verse), but either zoAAwv (H) or moAAoic (D*). — Ver. 10. 7 kadov- 
vn] is wanting in Elz., but is distinctly attested. The omission is explained 
from the fact that the word appeared inappropriate, disturbing, and feeble, — 
Ver. 12. td repi] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read repi, after A BC DES. Cor- 
rectly ; evayyeki£. is not elsewhere connected with epi, and this very circum- 
stance occasioned the insertion of ra.— Ver. 13. dvvdusı Kai omueia ueyala 
yıvöuseva] Elz. Lachm. Born. read: onueia x. dvvaneıc weydiac yıvouevac. Both 
modes of arrangement have important attestation. But the former is to be 
considered as original, with the exclusion, however, of the „eyaia deleted by 
Tisch., which is wanting in many and correct codd. (also in N), and is to be 
considered as an addition very naturally suggesting itself (comp. vi. 8) for the 
sake of strengthening. The later origin of the latter order of the words is 
proved by the circumstance that all the witnesses in favour of it have peyd/ac, 
and therefore it must have arisen after peydAa was already added. — Ver. 16. 
oonw] ABCDE®, min. Chrys. have otdémw. Recommended by Griesb. and 
adopted by Rinck, Lachm, Tisch. Born. The Recepta came into the text, 
through the inattention of the transcribers, as the word to which they were 
more accustomed. — Ver. 18. On decisive evidence idév is to be adopted, with 
Griesb. and the later editors, instead of @cacdu. The latter is a more precise 
definition. — Ver. 21. évdémiov] ABC D &, min. and several Fathers have 
évavtiov or &vavrı, which last Griesb. has recommended, and Lachm. Tisch. 
Born. have adopted. Correctly ; the familiar word was inserted instead of the 
rare one (Luke i. 8). — Ver. 22. kvpiov] So Lachm. Tisch. Born. But Elz, 
Scholz have Ocot, against preponderating evidence. A mechanical repetition, 
after ver. 21. — Ver. 25. The imperfects dréotpedov and ebyyyeAifovro (Lachm. 
Tisch. Born.) are decisively attested, as is also the omission of rc before Gaara, 
in ver. 27. — Ver. 27. 6s before 2974. is wanting in Lachm. and Born., follow- 
ing A C* D* 8*, Vulg. Sahid. Oec. An incorrect expedient to help the con- 


1 Instead of which, however, he (Praefat. p. viii.) conjectures moAAa. 


GENERAL PERSECUTION. 165 


struction. — After ver. 36, Elz. has (ver. 37): eime de 6 Bikımmog' ei mioteverg E£ 
öAns THE kapdiac, Eeorıv. ’Amorpißels de Ele’ mioreiw TOV viöv Tot Oeod elvaı TOV 
’Inooöv Xpıoröv. This is wanting in decisive witnesses ; and in those which 
have the words there are many variations of detail. It is defended, indeed, by 
Born., but is nothing else than an old (see already Iren. iii. 12 ; Cypr. ad Quir. 
iii. 43) addition for the sake of completeness. — Ver. 39. After mveöua A**, 
min. and a few vss. and Fathers have dy.ov émérecev Eni (or eic) TOV ebvoiyor, 
dyyedoc dé. A pious expansion and falsification of the history, induced partly 
by ver. 26 and partly by x. 44. 


Ver. 1. The observation Saitoc . . . aurou! forms the significant transi- 
tion to the further narrative of the persecution which is annexed. — j» 
ovvevdorav] he was jointly assenting, in concert, namely, with the originators 
and promoters of the avaipecic.? On avaipecic, in the sense of caedes, suppli- 
cium, comp. Num. xi. 15; Judith xv. 4; 2 Macc. v. 13; Herodian. ii. 6. 1, 
iii. 2.10. Here, also, the continuance and duration are more strongly de- 
noted by 7v with the participle than by the mere finite tense. — &v &xeivn TH 
quépa] is not, as is usually quite arbitrarily done, to be explained indefi- 
nitely ilo tempore, but (comp. ii. 41): on that day, when Stephen was 
stoned, the persecution arose, for the outbreak of which this tumultuary 
stoning served as signal (G'). — 77» év ‘Iepoc.] added, because now the disper- 
sion (comp. xi. 19) set in. —-rävrec] a hyperbolical expression of the popular 
mode of narration.* At the same time, however, the general expression 
tiv ExkAnoiav does not permit us to limit ravre¢ especially to the Hellenistic 
part of the church.* But if the hyperbolical rdvre¢ is not to be used 
against the historical character of the narrative (Schneckenburger, Zeller), 
neither are we to read withal between the lines that the church had been 
formally assembled and broken up, but that to dispersion into the regions 
of Judaea and Samaria — which is yet so clearly affirmed of the ravres !— a 
great part of those broken up, including the apostles, had not allowed 
themselves to be induced (so Baumgarten). —«. Zauapeiac]) This country 
only is here mentioned as introductory to the history which follows, ver. 5 
ff. For a wider dispersion, see xi. 19. — iv rov aroor.] This is explained, 
in opposition to Schleiermacher, Schneckenburger, and others, who con- 
sider these statements improbable, by the greater stedfastness of the 
apostles, who were resolved as yet, and in the absence of more special 
divine intimation, to remain at the centre of the theocracy, which, in their 
view at this time, was also the centre of the new theocracy. They knew 
themselves to be the appointed upholders and zpwraywworai (Oecumenius) 
of the cause of their Lord. 

Vv. 2, 3. The connection of vv. 1-3 depends on the double contrast, 





1 Observe the climaa of the three state- 3 Matt. iii. 5 ; Mark iii. 33, al. 
ments concerning Saul, vii. 59, viii. 1 and 3; 4 Baur, I. p. 46, ed. 2; comp. de Wette. 
also how the second and third are inserted 5 Quite inappropriately, pressing that mav- 
antithetically, and how all three are evidently res, Zeller, p. 153, in opposition to this in- 
intended to prepare the way for the subse- quires: “ Wherefore was this necessary, if 
quent importance of the man. all their followers were dispersed ?” 


2 Comp. Luke xi. 48, and on Rom. i. 3}. 


166 CHAP, VIII., 1-9. 


that in spite of the outbreak of persecution which took place on that day, 
the dead body of the martyr was nevertheless honoured by pious Jews; 
and that, on the other hand, the persecuting zeal of Saul stood in stern op- 
position thereto. On that day arose a great persecution, ver.1. This, however, 
prevented not pious men from burying and lamenting Stephen, ver. 2; (a') but 
Saul laid waste, in that persecution which arose, the church (of Jerusalem, 
ver. 3). he common opinion is accordingly erroneous, that there prevails 
here a lack of connection—ver. 2 is asupplementary addition, according to 
de Wette—which is either‘ to explained by the insertion of extracts from 
different sources, or? betokens that éyévero dé . . . arooröAwv is an inter- 
polation, or? at least makes it necessary to hold these words as transposed, 
so that they had originally stood after ver. 2. — ovyxopifer] to carry together, 
then, used of the dead who are carried to the other dead bodies at the 
burial-place, and generally: to bury.* According to the Scholiast on 
Soph. /.c. and Phavorinus, the expression is derived from gathering the 
fruits of harvest. Comp. Job v. 26. — The ävdpes evAaBeic are not, in op- 
position to Heinrichs and Ewald, Christians, but, as the connection requires, 
religious Jews who, in their pious conscientiousness (comp. ii. 5), and with 
a secret inclination to Christianity,® had the courage to honour the in- 
nocence of him who had been stoned. Christians would probably have 
been prevented from doing so, and Luke would have designated them more 
distinctly. — koreröc : Opyvoce peta odovd yeıpav, Hesychius.’ -— EAvuaivero] he 
laid waste, comp. ix. 21; Gal. i. 13. The following sentence informs us 
how he proceeded in doing so; therefore a colon is to be placed after r. 
éxkA. — Kara Tove oik. elorop.] entering by houses, house by house, Matt. xxiv. 
7. —obpwv] dragging.? 

Vv. 4, 5. Aı?0ov! they went through, they dispersed themselves through 
the countries to which they had fled.'’ — Ver. 5. Of the dispersed per- 
sons active as missionaries who were before designated generally, one is 
now singled out and has his labours described, namely Philip, not the 
apostle, as is erroneously assumed by Polycrates in Eusebius," but he who is 
named in vi. 5, xxi. 8. That the persecution should have been directed 
with special vehemence against the colleagues of Stephen, was very 
natural. Observe, however, that in the case of those dispersed, and even 
in that of Philip, preaching was not tied to an existing special office. With 
their preaching probably there was at once practically given the new 
ministry, that of the evangelists, xxi. 8; Eph. iv. 11, as circumstances re- 


1 Olshausen, Bleek. [p. 155. 
2 Ziegler in Gabler’s Journ. f. theol. Lit., I. 
3 Heinrichs, Kuinoel. 


8 Winer, p. 374 (E. T. 500). 
9 See Tittmann, Synon. N. T. p. 57 f., and 
Wetstein. Comp. xiv. 19, xvii. 3. Arrian. 


4 According to Schwanbeck, p. 825, v. 1 is 
to be regarded as an insertion from the biog- 
raphy of Peter. 

5 Soph. Aj. 1048; Plut. Sull. 38. [mus. 

6 Comp. Joseph of Arimathea and Nicode- 

7See Gen. 1.10; 1 Macc. ii. 70; Nicarch. 
30; Plut. #ab. 17; Heyne, Odss. in Tibull. p. 
{ab 


Epict. i. 29. 

10 The oi uev ody Staomapevtes is resumed at 
xi. 19,—a circumstance betokening that the 
long intervening portion has been derived 
from special sources here incorporated. 

11 iii, 81. 2, v. 24. 1; see, on the contrary, Vv. 
1, 14, and generally, Zeller, p. 154 ff; Ewald, 
p. 235 f. 


. PHILIP IN SAMARIA. Lay 


quired, under the guidance of the Spirit. — kare29.] from Jerusalem. — eic 
nöAw rc Sauap.| into a city of Samaria. What city it was (Grotius and 
Ewald think of the capital, Olshausen thinks that it was perhaps Sichem) is 
to be left entirely undetermined, and was probably unknown to Luke him- 
self. Comp. John iv. 5. Kuinoel, after Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Calovius, 
and others, takes r7c Zauap. as the name, not of the country, but of the 
capital.‘ In that case, indeed, the article would not have been necessary 
before röAıv, as Olshausen thinks.? röäcc, too with the genitive of the name 
of the city, is a Greek idiom ;* but ver. 9, where r7¢ Zauap. is evidently the 
name of the country (rd é@voc), is decidedly opposed to such a view. See 
also on ver. 14. —airoic] namely, the people in that city. 

Vv. 6, 7. Iloooeixgov] they gave heed thereto, denotes attentive, favourably 
disposed interest, xvi. 14; Heb, ii. 1; 1 Tim. i. 4 ; often in Greek writers.* 
The explanation jidem praebebant, Krebs, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and others, 
confounds the result of the rpoo&yew (ver. 12) with the zpooéyew itself,—a 
confusion which is committed in all the passages adduced to prove it. — év 
TO Gkoverv abrovc k. K.T.A.] in their hearing, etc., while they heard. — In ver. 
7, more than in v. 16, those affected by natural diseases (rapaAe?. x. ywdoi), 
who were healed (£depareid.), are expressly distinguished from the pos- 
sessed,° whose demons came out (££7pxero) with great crying.—Notice the 
article before Eyövrwov : of many of those who, ete., consequently, not of all. 
As regards the construction, moAAov is dependent on the ra rveunara axddapra 
to be again tacitly supplied after rvevuara axabapra.® 

Ver. 9. Ziuov] is not identical, in opposition to Heumann, Krebs, Rosen- 
miiller, Kuinoel, Neander, de Wette, Hilgenfield,’” with the Simon of 
Cyprus in Joseph.,* whom the Procurator Felix, at a latter period, employed 
to estrange Drusilla, the wife of Azizus king of Emesa in Syria, from her 
husband. For (1) Justin,’ expressly informs us that Simon was from the 
village Gitthon in Samaria, and Justin himself was a Samaritan, so that we 
can the less suppose, in his case, a confusion with the name of the Cyprian 
town Kiriov.!® (2) The identity of name cannot, on account of its great. 
prevalence, prove anything, and as little can the assertion that the Samari- 
tans would hardly have deified one of their own countrymen, ver. 10, 
The latter is even more capable of explanation from the national pride, 
than it would be with respect to a Cyprian. — rpoürnpxev] he was formerly, 
even before the appearance of Philip, in the city. The following yayeiwv 
x.r.A. then adds how he was occupied there ; comp. Luke xxiii. 12. — 
payeiorv| practising magical arts, only here in the N. T.!! The magical exer- 
cises of the wizards, who at that time very frequently wandered about in 


1 Sebaste, which was also called Samaria, 
Joseph. Antt. xviii. 6. 2. 

2 Poppo, ad Thuc. i. 10; Ellendt, Lea. Soph. 
II. p. 137 ; comp. Luke ii. 4, 11 ; 2 Pet. ii. 6. 

3 Ruhnk. Zpp. crit. p. 186. 

4 Jacobs, ad Ach. Tat. p. 882. 

5 Comp. Luke iv. 40 f. 

* See Matthiae, p. 1533 ; Kühner, II. p. 602. 

? See also Gieseler’s Kirchengesch. I. sec. 


18. 8, and others. 

8 Antt.xx.7.2. Neander, p. 107 f., has en- 
tirely misunderstood the words of Josephus. 
See Zeller, p. 164 f. 

® Apol. I. 26; comp. Clem. Hom. i. 15, ii. 22. 

LO PHC 112. 1. 

11 But see Eur. Jph. T. 1337 ; Meleag. 12; 
Clearch. in Athen. vi. p. 256 E; Jacobs, ad 
Anthol, VI. p. 29. 


168 CHAP. VIII., 10-13. 


the East, extended chiefly to an ostentatious application of their attain- 
ments in physicial knowledge to juggling conjurings of the dead and 
demons, to influencing the gods, to sorceries, cures of the sick, sooth- 
sayings from the stars, and the like, in which the ideas and formulae of 
the Oriental-Greek theosophy were turned to display.1—rtwa .. . péyav] 
We are not, accordingly, to put any more definite claim into the mouth of 
Simon ; the text relates only generally his boasting self-exaltation, which 
may have expressed itself very differently according to circumstances, but 
always amounted to this, that he himself was a certain extraordinary person. 
Perhaps Simon designedly avoided a more definite self-designation, in 
order to leave to the praises of the people all the higher scope in the desig- 
nating of that (ver. 10) which he himself wished to pass for. — éavrév] 
He thus acted quite differently from Philip, who preached Christ, ver. 5. 
Comp. Rev. ii. 20. 

. Ver. 10. Ilpooeiyov] just as in ver. 6.— and ukpov éwe ueydAov] A designa- 
tion of the whole body, from little and up to great, i.e. young and old.”— 
ovTé¢ Eorıv 7 duv. T. Ocov 7 KaA. uey.] this is the God-power called great. The 
Samaritans believed that Simon was the power emanating from God, and 
appearing and working among them as a human person, which, as the 
highest of the divine powers, was designated by them with a specific 
appellation kar’ &£oyyv as the weyadn. Probably the Oriental-Alexandrine 
idea of the world-creating manifestation of the hidden God, the Logos, 
which Philo also calls unrpörorıc racdv Tov Övvauswv Tod Ocov, had become 
at that time current among them, and they saw in Simon this effluence of 
the Godhead rendered human by incarnation,—a belief which Simon 
certainly had been cunning enough himself to excite and to promote, and 
which makes it more than probable that the magician, to whom the neigh- 
bouring Christianity could not be unknown, designed in the part which he 
played to present a phenomenon similar to Christ; comp. Ewald. The 
belief of the Samaritans in Simon was thus, as regards its tenor, an ana- 
logue of the 6 Aöyoc caps éyévero, and hence served to prepare for the true 
and definite faith in the Messiah, afterwards preached to them by Philip: 
the former became the bridge to the latter. Erroneously Philastr. Haer. 
29, and recently Olshausen, de Wette, and others, put the words 7 düvauıs 
x.T.2. Into the mouth of Simon himself, so that they are held only to be an 
echo of what the sorcerer had boastingly said of himself.* This is con- 


1 See Neander, Gesch. d. Pflanz. u. Leit. a. 
christl. K. I. p. 99 f.; Müller in Herzog’s 
Eneyk!. WII. p. 675 fi. 

2Comp. Heb. viii. 11; Acts xxvi. 22; Bar. 
1.4; Judith xiii. 4, 13; 1 Macc. v. 45; LXX. 
Gen. xix. 11; Jer. xlii. 1, al. 

3 According to Jerome on Matth. xxiv., he 
asserted of himself: ‘‘ Ego sum sermo Dei, 
ego sum speciosus, ego paracletus, ego om- 
nipotens, ego omnia Dei.’’ Certainly an in- 
vention of the later Simonians, who trans- 
ferred specifically Christian elements of faith 
to Simon. But this and similar things which 


were put into the mouth of Simon (that he was 
AvWTarn Tis Svvauts Kal a’TOV TOD TOY KOTMOV 
xticavtos @eov, Clem. Hom. ii. 22, 25; that he 
was the same who had appeared among the 
Jews as the Son, but had come among the 
Samaritans as the Father, and among other 
nations as the Holy Spirit, Iren. i. 23), and 
were wonderfully dilated on by opponents, 
point back to a relation of incarnation 
analogous to the incarnation of the Logos, 
under which the adherents of Simon conceived 
him. De Wette incorrectly denies this, re- 
ferring the expression, ‘‘ the great power af 


SIMON IS BAPTIZED. 169 


trary to the text, which expressly distinguishes the opinion of the infatu- 
ated people here from the assertion of the magician himself, ver. 9. He 
had characterized himself indefinitely ; they judged definitely and confessed 
(Aéyovrec) the highest that could be said of him ; and, in doing so, accorded 
with the intention of the sorcerer. 

Ver. 12. They believed Philip, who announced the good news of the kingdom 
of God and of the name of Jesus Christ.— evayyekiz. only here (see the 
critical remarks) with repi.'— The Samaritans called the Messiah whom 
they expected 279 or INN, the Converter, and considered Him as the 
universal, not merely political, but still more religious and moral, Renewer. 
See on John iv. 25. 

Ver. 13. "Eriorevoe] also on his part (k. aizdc), like the other Samaritans, 
he became believing, namely, likewise 7 ®dirnw evayyeAlloutvo K.rT.A. (1). 
Entirely at variance with the text is the opinion ? that Simon regarded 
Jesus only as a great magician and worker of miracles, and not as the 
Messiah, and only to this extent believed on Him. He was, by the preach- 
ing and miracles of Philip, actually moved to faith in Jesus as the Messiah. 
Yet this faith of his was only historical and intellectual, without having as 
its result a change of the inner life ;* hence he was soon afterwards capable 
of what is related in vv. 18, 19. The real weravora is not excited in him, 
even at ver. 24. Cyril aptly remarks: éSarricO, aa our Epwriodn. — ESicraro] 


he, who had formerly been himself é&:crav rö éAvoc ! 


Wav 417 


God,” to the notion of an angel. This is too 
weak; all the ancient accounts concerning 
Simon, as well as concerning his alleged com- 
panion Helena, the all-bearing mother of 
angels and powers, betoken a Messianic part 
which he played ; to which also the name o 
*Eotws. by which he designated himself accord- 
ing to the Clementines, points. This name 
(hardly correctly explained by Ritschl, altkath. 
Kirche, p. 228 f., from avacryce:, Deut. xviii. 
15, 18) denotes the imperishable and unchange- 
able. See, besides, concerning Simon and his 
doctrine according to the Clementines, 
Uhlhorn, die Homil. u. Recognit. des Clemens 
Rom. p. 281 ff.; Zeller, p. 159 ff.; and concern- 
ing the entire diversified development of the 
old legends concerning him, Miiller in 
Herzog’s Encykl. XIV. p. 39i ff.; concerning 
his doctrine of the Aeons and Syzygies, 
Philosoph. Orig. vi. 7 ff. According to Baur 
and Zeller, the magician never existed atall; 
and the degend concerning him, which arose 
from Christian polemics directed against the 
Samaritan worship of the sun-god, the Oriental 
Hercules (Baal-Melkart), is nothing else than 
a hostile travestie of the Apostle Paul and his 
antinomian labours. Comp. also Hilgenfeld, 
d. clement. Recognit. p. 319 f.; Voleckmar in the 
theol. Jahrb. 1856, p. 279 ff. The Book of Acts 
has, in their view, admitted this legend about 


Oi év ‘Iepoc. atöor.) applies, according to ver. 1, to all the 


Simon, but has cut off the reference to Paul. 
Thus the state of the case is exactly reversed. 
The history of Simon Magus in our passage 
was amplified in the Clementines in an anti- 
Pauline interest. The Book of Acts has not 
cut off the hostile reference to Paul ; but the 
Clementines have added it, and accordingly 
have dressed out the history with a view to 
combit Paulinism and Gnosticism, indeed 
have here and there caricatured Paul himself 
as Simon. We set to work unhistorically, if 
we place the simple narratives of the N. T. on 
a parall.] with later historical excrescences 
and disfigurements, and by means of the latter 
attack the former as likewise fabulous repre- 
tations. Our narrative contains the historical 
germ, from which the later legends concern- 
ing Simon Magus have luxuriantly developed 
themselves ; the Samaritan worship of the sun 
and moon has nothing whatever to do with 
the history of Simon. 

1 But see Rom. i. 3; Josephus, Anff. xv. 7. 2. 

2 Grotius, Clericus, Rosenmiiller, Kuinoel. 

3 Bengel well remarks: ‘‘ Agnovit, virtu- 
tem Dei non esse in se, sed in Philippo. 
Non tamen pertigit ad fidem plenam, justifi- 
cantem, cor purificantem, salvantem, tametsi 
ad eam pervenisse speciose videretur, donec 
se aliter prodidit.’’ 


170 CHAP. VIII., 14-17. 

apostles, to the apostolic college, which commissioned two of its most 
distinguished members, Gal. ii. 9.— Zauäpeıa] here also the name of the 
country ; see vv. 5, 9. From the success which the missionary labours of 
Philip had in that single city, dates the conversion of the country in general, 
and so the fact: dédextar 7 Yaudpera tov Adyov tov Oecd (3'). — The design of 
the mission of Peter and John! (x!) is certainly, according to the text, in 
opposition to Schneckenburger, to be considered as that which they 
actually did after their arrival, ver. 15: to pray for the baptized, in order 
that (owe) they might receive the Holy Spirit (L!). Not as if, in general, 
the communication of the Spirit had been exclusively bound up with the 
prayer and the imposition of the hands (vv. 17, 18) of an actual apostle ; 
nor yet as if here under the Spirit we should have to conceive something 
peculiar :? but the observation, ver. 16, makes the baptism of the Samaritans 
without the reception of the Spirit appear as something extraordinary : the 
epoch-making advance of Christianity beyond the bounds of Judaea into 
Samaria was not to be accomplished without the intervention of the direct 
ministry of the apostles. Therefore the Spirit was reserved until this 
apostolic intervention occurred. To explain the matter from the designed 
omission of prayer for the Holy Spirit on the part of Philip,‘ or from the 
subjectivity of the Samaritans, whose faith had not yet penetrated into the 
inner life,® has no justification in the text, the more especially as there is no 
mention of any further instruction by the apostles, but only of their prayer, 
and imposition of hands,° in the effect of which certainly their greater 
é£ovoia, as compared with that of Philip as the mere evangelist, was his- 
torically made apparent, because the nascent church of Samaria was not to 
develope its life otherwise than in living connection with the apostles them- 
selves.” The miraculous element of the apostolic influence is to be recog- 
nised as connected with the whole position and function of the apostles, 
and not to be referred to a sphere of view belonging to a later age (Zeller, 
Holtzmann). — dédexrar] has received.* — karaßävres] namely, to Samaria 


situated lower. — oidéxw yap nv] for 


1 Which Baur (I. p. 47, ed. 2) derives from 
the interest of Judaism to place the new 
churches in a position of dependence on Jeru- 
salem, and to prevent too free a development 
of the Hellenistic principle. See, on the 
other hand, Schneckenburger in the Stud. u. 
Krit. 1855, p. 542 ff., who, however, likewise 
gratuitously imports the opinion that the con- 
version of the Samaritans appeared suspicious 
and required a more exact examination. 

270 Toy onmetwv, Chrysostom, comp. Beza, 
Calvin. 

3 Comp. Baumgarten, p. 175 ff. 

4 Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 32. 

5 Neander, p. 80 f., 104. 

6 Ver. 15, comp. with vv. 17. 18, shows 
clearly the relation of prayer to the imposition 
of hands. The prayer obtained from God the 
communication of the Spirit, but the imposi- 
tion of hands, after the Spirit had been prayed 


as yet not at all, etc. — uwövov dé 


for, became the vehicle of the communication. 
It was certainly of a symbolical nature, yet 
not a bare and ineffective symbol, but the 
effective conductor of the gifts prayed for. 
Comp, on vi. 6. In xix. 5 also it is applied 
after baptism, and with the result of the 
communication of the Spirit. On the other 
hand, at x. 48, it would have come too late. 
If it is not specially mentioned in cases of 
ordinary baptism, where the operation of the 
Spirit was not bound up with the apostolic 
imposition of hands as here (see 1 Cor. 1. 
14-17, xii. 13; Tit. iii. 5), 1t ıs to be considered 
as obvious of itself (Heb. vi. 2). 

7 Surely this entirely peculiar state of mat- 
ters should have withheld the Catholics from 
grounding the doctrize of confirmation on our 
passage (as even Beelen does). 

8 See xvii. 7; Winer, p. 246 (E. T. 328) ; 
Valcken. p. 487. 


SIMON MAGUS. u 171 


Beßarrıou£vor x.r.r.] but they found themselves only in the condition of bap- 
tized ones, not at the same time also furnished with the Spirit. 

Ver. 18. The communication of the Spirit was visible (idov, see the critical 
remarks) in the gestures and gesticulations of those who had received it, 
perhaps also in similar phenomena to those which took place at Pentecost . 
in Jerusalem. — Did Simon himself receive the Spirit? Certainly not, as this 
would have rendered him incapable of so soon making the offer of money. 
He saw the result of the apostolic imposition of hands on others,—there- 
upon his impatient desire waits not even for his own experience—the power 
of the apostolic prayer would have embraced him also and filled him with 
the Spirit—and, before it came to his turn to receive the imposition of hands, 
he makes his proposal, perhaps even as a condition of allowing the hands 
to be laid upon him. The opinion of Kuinoel, that from pride he did not 
consider it at all necessary that the hands should be laid on him, is entirely 
imaginary. The motive of his proposal was selfishness in the interest of his 
magical trade ; very naturally he valued the communication of the Spirit, 
to the inward experience of which he was a stranger, only according to 
the surprising outward phenomena, and hence saw in the apostles the pos- 
sessors of a higher magical power still unknown to himself, the possession 
of which he as a sorcerer coveted, ‘‘ne quid sibi deesset ad ostentationem 
et quaestum,’’ Erasmus. 

Vv. 20, 21. Thy money be along with thee unto destruction ; i.e. let perdition, 
Messianic penal destruction, come upon thy money and thyself! The sin- 
money, in the lofty strain of the language, is set forth as something per- 
sonal, capable of arörsıa. — ein eic axoA.| a usual attraction: fall into de- 





struction and be in it.!— ryv Ödwpeav tov Oeov] Hv éovaiav raizyv, iva K.T.d., 
ver. 19. Observe the antithetically chosen designation. — &vowsac] thou 
wast minded, namely, in the proposal made. — wepic oidé KAnpoc] synonyms, 
of which the second expresses the idea figuratively : part nor lot.” The 
utterance is carnest. — &v ro Adyw rourw] in this word, i.e. in the &£ovoia to be 
the medium of the Spirit, which was in question. Lange gratuitously im- 
ports the idea: in this word, which flows from the hearts of believers moved 
by the Spirit. Adyoc of the ‘ipsa causa, de qua disceptatur,’’ is very cur- 
rent also in classical writers.* Others, as Olshausen and Neander after 
Grotius, explain Aöyoc of the gospel, all share in whose blessings is cut off 
from Simon. But then this reference must have been suggested by the 
context, in which, however, there is no mention at all of doctrine. — cifeia 
straight, i.e. upright,* for Simon thought to acquire (xracfac) an é£ovcia not 
destined for him, from immoral motives, and by an unrighteous means. 
Herein lies the immoral nature of simony, whose source is selfishness. °® 

Vv. 22, 23. ’Amö tie xax.] i.e. turning thee away from, Heb. vi. 1. 
Comp. on 2 Cor, xi. 38.—ei dpa ageOjoera] entreat the Lord (God, 


1 See Winer, p. 386 f. (E. T. 516 f.). Comp. Nägelsb. on the Ziad, p. 41 f. ed. 3. 
ver. 23, 4 Comp. Wisd. ix. 3; Ecclus. vil. 6. 
2 Comp. Dent. xii. 12, xiv. 27,29 : Isa. lvii. 6. 5 Comp. the ethical oxoAıos (Luke iii. 5), ii. 
3 Ast, Lew. Plat. II. p. 256; Brunck, ad 40; Phil. ii. 15. “Cor arx boni et mali,” Ben- 
Soph. 45.1268 ; Wolf, ad Dem. Lept. p. 277; gel ; Delitzch, Psychol. p. 250. 


172 CHAP, VIII, 18-24. 


ver. 21), and try thereby, whether perhaps, as the case may stand, there 
will be forgiven, etc. Comp. on Mark xi. 13; Rom. i. 10. Peter, on 
account of the high degree of the transgression, represents the forgive 
ness on repentance still as doubtful." Kuinoel, after older expositors,* thinks 
that the doubt concerns the conversion of Simon, which was hardly to be 
hoped for. At variance with the text, which to the fulfilment of the 
weravönoov, without which forgiveness was not at all conceivable, annexes 
still the problematic <i dpa. Concerning the direct expression by the 
Future, see Winer, p. 282 (E. T. 376). — 7 &rivora] the (conscious) plan, the 
project, is a vow media, which receives its reference in bonam,* or as here in 
malam partem, entirely from the context.*—For I perceive thee fallen into 
and existing in gall of bitterness and in band of iniquity, i.e. for I recognise 
thee as a man who has fallen into bitter enmity against the gospel as into 
gall, and into iniquity as into binding fetters. Both genitives are to be 
taken alike, namely, as genitives of apposition ; hence yody mırpiac is not fel 
amarum, 28 is usually supposed, in which case, besides, rırpiac would only 
be tame and self-evident. On the contrary, rırpia is to be taken in the 
ethical sense, a bitter, malignant, and hostile disposition ;° often in the 
classical writers,° which, figuratively represented, is gall, into which 
Simon had fallen. In the correspondimg representation, adıria is conceived 
as a band which encompassed him. Comp. Isa. Iviii. 6. Others render 
civdecuoc, bundle” So Alberti, Wolf, Wetstein, Valckenaer, Kuinoel, and 
others, including Ewald. But in this way the genitive would not be taken 
uniformly with rırpiac, and we should expect instead of adıriac a plural ex- 
pression. Ewald, moreover, concludes from these words that a vehement 
contest had previously taken place between Peter and Simon,—a point — 
which must be left undetermined, as the text indicates nothing of it. — eiva 
eic] stands as in ver. 20.° Lange,’ at variance with the words, gratuitously 
imports the notion: ‘‘that thou wilt prove to be a poison. . . in the 
church.”’ 

Ver. 24. ‘Yweic] whose prayer must be more effectual. On def6. with mpeg, 
comp. Ps. Ixiv. 1. —érwe undév x.7.4.] ‘‘ poenae metum, non culpae horrorem 
fatetur,”’ Bengel. A humiliation has begun in Simon, but it refers to the 
apostolic threat of punishment, the realization of which he wishes to avert, 
not. to the ground of this threat, which lay in his own heart and could only 
be removed by a corresponding repentance. Hence, also, his conversion, 
which even Calvin conjectures to have taken place,’ does not ensue. It 


32 Macc. xii. 45; Ar. Thesm. 766, al. 
4 See the passages in Kypke, II. p. 42, and 


1 Not as if it were thereby made dependent 
on the caprice of God (de Wette’s objection), 


but becanse God, in presence of the greatness 
of the guilt, could only forgive on the corre- 
sponding sincerity and truth of the repentance 
and believing prayer ; and how doubtful was 
this with sucha mind! The whole greatness 
of the danger was to be brought to the con- 
sciousnes of Simon, and to quicken him tothe 
need of repentance and prayer. 
2 Comp. Heinrichs and de Wette. 


from Philo in Loesner, p. 198 f. 

5 Rom. iii. 14; E h. iv. 31. 

6 See Valck. ad Eur. Phoen. 963. 

7 Comp. Herodian. iv. 12. 11. 

8 See Buttmann, veut. Gr. p. 286 (E. T. 333). 

® Comp. also Thiersch, Aörche im apost. 
Zeit. p. 91. 

10 Comp. Ebrard. 


THE ETHIOPIAN EUNUCH. 173 


would, as a brilliant vietory of the apostolic word, not have been omitted ; 
and in fact the ecclesiastical traditions concerning the stedfastly continued 
conflict of Simon with the Jewish-apostolic gospel, in spite of all the 
strange and contradictory fables mixed up with it down to his overthrow 
by Peter at Rome, testify against the occurrence of that conversion at all. 

Vv. 25, 26. Tov Ady. r. xvp.] The word which they spoke was not their 
word, but Ohrist’s, who caused the gospel to be announced by them as His 
ministers and interpreters.’ But the auctor principalis is God (x. 36), hence 
the gospel is still more frequently called 6 A6yo¢ rot Oeov, iv. 29, 31, vi. 2, 
and frequently. — roAAdc re kouac .*. . eunyyeA.] namely, on their way back 
to Jerusalem. — evayyeAifecta:, with the accusative of the person,” is rare, 
and belongs to the later Greek.* — üyye2oc dé xvpiov] is neither to be ration- 
alized with Eichhorn to the effect, that what is meant is the sudden and 
involuntary rise of an internal impulse not to be set aside; nor with 
Olshausen to the effect, that what is designated is not a being appearing 
individually, but a spiritual power, by which a spiritual communication 
was made to Philip ; the language is, in fact, not figurative, as in John i. 
52, but purely historical. On the contrary, Luke narrates an actual angelic 
appearance, that spoke literally to Philip. This appearance must, in respect 
of its form, be left undefined, as a vision in a dream,* is not indicated in 
the text, not even by avdoryf, which rather (raise thyself) belongs to the 
pictorial representation ; comp. on v. 17. Philip received this angelic 
intimation in Samaria, in opposition to Zeller, who makes him to have 
returned with the apostles to Jerusalem, while the two apostles were on 
their way back to Jerusalem. — Tala, WY, z.e. the strong,” a strongly forti- 
fied Philistine city, situated on the Mediterranean, on the southern border 
of Canaan.° It was conquered,’ and destroyed,® by Alexander the Great, 
—a fate which, after many vicissitudes, befell it afresh under the Jewish 
King Alexander Jannaeus, in B.c. 96.° Rebuilt as New Gaza farther to the 
south by the Proconsul Gabinius, B.c. 58, the city was incorporated with 
the province of Syria. Its renewed, though not total destruction by the 
Jews occurred not long before the siege of Jerusalem.’° It is now the open 
town Ghuzzeh. —aitn £oriv Epnuoc) applies to the way, von Raumer, Robin- 
son, Winer, Buttmann, Ewald, Baumgarten, Lange, and older commenta- 
tors, as Castalio, Beza, Bengel, and others. As several roads led from 
Jerusalem to Gaza, and still lead," the angel specifies the road, which he 
means, more exactly by the statement : this way is desolate, i.e. it is a desert 
way, leading through solitary and little cultivated distriets.” Such a road 
still exists ; see Robinson, /.c. The object of this more precise specification 
can according to the text only be this, that Philip should take no other road 


ı Comp. xiii. 48 f., xv. 35 f., xix. 10, 20. Arnold in Herzog’s Encykl. IV. p. 671 ff. 
2 Luke iii. 18; Acts xiv. 21, xvi. 10. 7 Plut. Alex. 25; Curt. iv. 6. 
3 See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 267 f. 8 Strabo, xvi. 2. 30, p. 759. 
4 Eckermann, Heinrichs, Kuinoel. ® Joseph. Anft. xiii. 13. 3, Bell. i. 4.2. 
6 Gen. x. 19; Josh. xv. 45; Judg. iii. 3, xvi. 10 Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 18. 1. 

1; 1 Macc. xi. 16. 11 See Robinson, II. p. 748. 
6 See Stark, Gaza u. d. philistäische Küste, 12 Comp. 2 Sam. ii. 24. LXX. 


Jena 1852; Ritter, Zrak. XVI. 1, p. 45 ff.. 


174 CHAP.. VIIL., 27, 28. 


than that on which he would not miss, but would really encounter, the Ethio- 
pian. The angel wished to direct him right surely. Other designs are 
imported without any ground in the text, as, e.g., that he wished to raise 
him above all fear of the Jews,’ or to describe the locality as suitable for 
undisturbed evangelical operations,” and for deeper conversation,*® or even to 
indicate that the road must now be spiritually prepared and constructed 
(Lange). épyuoc stands without the article, because ıt is conceived alto- 
gether qualitatively. If airy is to be referred to Gaza,* and the words 
likewise to be ascribed to the angel, we should have to take Zpmuoc as 
destroyed, and to understand these words of the angel as an indication that 
he meant not the rebuilt New Gaza, but the old Gaza lying in ruins. But 
this would be opposed, not indeed to historical correctness (see Stark), but 
yet to the connection, for the event afterwards related happened on the 
way, and this way was to be specified. Others consider the words as a gloss 
of Luke” But if airy is to be referred to the way, is is difficult to see what 
Luke means by that remark. If it is to indicate that the way is not, or no 
longer, passable, this has no perceptible reference to the event which is 
related. But if, as Wieseler, p. 401, thinks, it is meant to point to the 
fact that the Ethiopian on this solitary way could read without being dis- 
turbed, and aloud, no reader could possibly guess this, and at any rate 
Luke would not have made the remark till ver. 28. If, on the other hand, 
we refer airy in this supposed remark of Luke to the city, we can only 
assume, with Hug and Lekebusch, p. 419 f., that Luke has meant its 
destruction, which took place in the Jewish war.* But even thus the notice 
would have no definite object in relation to the narrative, which is con- 
cerned not with the city, but with the way as the scene of the event. Hug 
and Lekebusch indeed suppose that the recent oceurrence of the destruction 
induced Luke to notice it here on the mention of Gaza; but it is against 
this view in its turn, that Luke did not write till a considerable time after 
the destruction of Jerusalem.” Reland, Wolf, Krebs, inappropriately 
interpret pyucc as unfortified, which the context must have suggested.*® 
and which would yield a very meaningless remark. Wassenberg, Hein- 
richs, and Kuinoel take refuge in the hypothesis of an interpolated gloss. 

Ver. 27. Kai idov] And behold (there was) aman. Comp. on Matt. iii. 17. 
—rbvoryoc duvdornc] is, seeing that dvvdaoryc is a substantive, most simply 
taken, not conjointly, a power-wielding eunuch, after the analogy of Herod. 
ii. 3%: avdpov dvvactéwv maıdes,’ but separately: a eunuch, one wielding 
power, so that there is a double apposition.!" The more precise description 
what kind of wielder of power he was, follows, chief treasurer, yafogiAag." 
The express mention of his sexual character is perhaps connected with the 


1 Chrysostom, Oecumenius. 6 Joseph. Bell. ii. 18. 1. 
2 Baumgarten. 7 See Introduction, sec. 3. 
3 Ewald, Jahrd. VY. p. 227. 8 Asin the passages in Sturz, Lex. Xen. IL. 
4 So Stark, U.c. p. 510 ff., following Erasmus, p. 359. 
Calvin, Grotius, and others. ® Comp, Ecclus. viii. 1. 
5 De Wette, Wieseler, and others, following 10 See Bornemann in loc. 


older interpreters. ; 11 Plut. Mor. p. 823 C ; Athen. vi. p. 261 B. 


THE ETHIOPIAN EUNUCH. 175 


universalism of Luke, in contrast to Deut. xxiii. 1. In the East, eunuchs 
were taken not only to be overseers of the harem, but also generally to fill 
the most important posts of the court and the closet,’ hence eivoiyo¢ is 
often employed generally of court officials, without regard to corporeal 
mutilation.” Many therefore, Cornelius a Lapide, de Dieu, Kuinoel, 
Olshausen, suppose that the Ethiopian was not emasculated, for he is called 
avnp and he was not a complete Gentile, as Eusebius and Nicephorus would 
make him, but, according to ver. 30 ff., a Jew, whereas Israelitish citizen- 
ship did not belong to emasculated persons.” But if so, evvoiyoc, with 
which, moreover, the general word dvjp * is sufficiently compatible, would 
be an entirely superfluous term. The very fact, however, that he was an 
officer of the first rank in the court of a queen, makes it most probable that 
he was actually a eunuch ; and the objection drawn from Deut. l.e. is 
obviated by the very natural supposition that he was a proselyte of the gate, 
comp. on John xii. 20. That this born Gentile, although a eunuch, had 
been actually received into the congregation of Israel (Baumgarten), and 
accordingly a proselyte of righteousness, as Calovius and others assumed, 
cannot be proved either from Isa, lvi. 3-6, where there is a promise of the 
Messianic future, in the salvation of which even Gentiles and eunuchs were 
to share ; nor from the example of Ebedmelech, Jer. xxxviii. 7 ff., con- 
sidered by Baumgarten as the type of the chamberlain, of whom it is not 
said that he was a complete Jew ; nor can it be inferred from the distant 
journey of the man and his quick reception of baptism,® which is a very 
arbitrary inference. Eusebius, ii. 1, also designates him as rpéroc é& evar, 
who had been converted. Kavdary was, like Pharaoh among the Egyptian 
kings, the proper name in common of the queens of Bthiopia, which still 
in the times of Eusebius was governed by queens.° Their capital was 
Napata.”— On yala, a word received from the Persian, ‘‘ pecuniam regiam, 
quam gazam Persae vocant,’’* into Greek and Latin.’ —é7i, as in vi. 3. 
Nepos, Datam. 5: ‘‘gazae custos regiae.’? — Tradition,’ with as much 
uncertainty as improbability,!! calls the Ethiopian /ndich and Judich, and 
makes him, — what is without historical proof, doubtless, but in itself not 
improbable, though so early a permanent establishment of Christianity 
in Ethiopia is not historically known,—the first preacher of the gospel 
among his countrymen, whose queen the legend with fresh invention 
makes to be baptized by him.'? 

Vv. 28-31. He read aloud (see ver. 30), and most probably from the LXX. 
translation widely diffused in Egypt. Perhaps he had been induced by 
what he had heard in Jerusalem of Jesus and of His fate to occupy himself 


1 Pignor. de servis, p. 371 f.; Winer, Realw. 6 See Strabo, xvii. 1. 54, p. 820; Dio Cass. 
8.v. Verschnittene. liv.55 Plin: N: 2 vi. 85. 2. [140 ff. 

2 See de Dieu, in loc. ; Spanheim, ad Julian. 7 See particularly Laurent, neutest. Stud. p. 
Oratt. p. 174. 8 Curt. iii. 13. 5. 

3 Deut. xxiii. 1; Michaelis, Mos. R. II. $ 95, 9 See Serv. ad Virgil. Aen. i. 119, vol. i. p. 
IV. § 195; Ewald, Alterth. p. 218. 30, ed. Lion. and Wetstein in loc. 

‘He might even haye been married. See 10 Bzovius, Annal. ad a. 1524, p. 542. 
Gen. xxxix. 1, and Knobel in Joc. 11 Ludolf, Comm. ad. Hist. Aeth. p. 89 f. 


5 Lange, apost. Zeitalt. II. p. 109. 12 Niceph. ii. 6. 


176 CHAP, VIII, 29-40. 


on the way with Isaiah in particular, the Evangelist among the prophets, 
and with this very section concerning the Servant of God. Ver. 34 is not 
opposed to this. — eine dé r. rveuua denotes the address of the Holy Spirit 
inwardly apprebended. Comp. x. 19. — x0%76nrı] attach thyself to, separate 
not thyself from.’ — apa ye ywooreıs & avayıwaoreıs ;| For instances of a 
similar paronomasia,” see Winer, p. 591 [E. T. 794 f.]. Comp. 2 Cor. iii. 
2; 2 Thess. iii. 11. apa, num (with the strengthening yé), stands here as 
ordinarily: “ut aliquid sive verae sive fictae dubitationis admisceat.’'® 
Philip doubts whether the Aethiopian was aware of the Messianic reference 
of the words which he read. — röc yap av dwvalımv «.r.A.] an evidence of 
humility and susceptibility. av, with the optative, denotes the subjective 
possibility conditionally conceived and consequently undecided.* yap is 
to be taken without a no to be supplied before it: How withal. as the mat- 
ter stands. See on Matt. xxvii. 23. 

Vv. 82, 33. But the contents of the passage of Scripture which he read was 
this. tHe ypadjc] is here restricted by 7v aveyivworev to the notion of a single 
passage, as also, ver. 35, by raurnc.° Luther has given it correctly. But 
many others refer jv aveyivwor. to 7 mepıoxn : *" locus autem scripturae, quem 
legebat, hic erat,’’ Kuinoel, following the Vulgate. But it is not demon- 
strable that repıoxr signifies a section ; even in the places cited to show this, ® 
it is to be taken as here: what is contained in the passage,’ and this is then 
verbally quoted.* — öc mpößarov x.7.A.] Isa. lili. 7, 8, with unimportant vari- 
ation from the LXX.’ The subject of the whole oracle is the Mm! 72%, 
i.e. according to the correct Messianic understanding of the apostolic 
church, the Messiah.'° The prophetical words, as Luke gives them, are as 
follows: As a sheep He has been led to the slaughter ; and as a lamb, which is 
dumb before its shearer, so He opens not His mouth. In His humiliation His 
judgment was taken away, i.e. when He had so humbled Himself to the 
bloody death, comp. Phil. ii. 8, the judicial fate imposed on Him by God" 
was taken from Him, so that now therefore the culmination and crisis of 
His, destiny set in, comp. Phil. ii. 9. But His offspring who shall deseribe ? 
i.e. how indescribably great is the multitude of those belonging to Him, of 
whom He will now be the family Head, comp. Phil. ii. 10! for ground of 
the origin of this immeasurable progenies, His life is taken away from the 
earth, so that He enters upon His heavenly work relieved from the tram- 
mels of earth.” yeved does not, any more than 4), signify dwration of life.” 


1Comp. Ruth ii. 8; Tob. vi. 17; 1 Macc. 
vi. 21. 

2 Compare the well-known saying of Julian: 
aveyvwv, EyVwV, KATEYPWV. 

3 Battmann, ad Charmid. 14. Comp. Herm. 
ad Viger. p. 823, and on Luke xviii. 8 ; Gal. ii. 
17; Baeuml. Partik. p. 40 f. 

4 See Kühner, § 467. [xii. 10. 

5 Comp. i. 16; Luke iv. 21; and on Mark 

6 Cie. ad Alt. xiii. 25, and Stob. Zel. phys. 
p. 164 A. 

7 Hesych. Suid. ; vaoecrs. 

8 Comp. the use of meptexeı, 1 Pet. ii. 6, and 


Huther in loc. 

9 Which, however, deviates considerably, 
and in part erroneously, from the original 
Hebrew. 

10 Matt. viii. 17; Mark xv. 28; John xii. 
88 ff., i. 29; 1 Pet. ii. 22 ff. Comp. the mais 
tov @eov, iii. 13, 26, iv. 27, 30. 

11 The designation of His destiny of suffer- 
ing as 7 Kpiots av’rod presupposes the idea of 
its vicarious and propitiatory character. 

12 Comp. John xii. 32; Rom. v. 10, viii. 29, 
34. xiv. 9. . 

13 Luther, Beza, Calvin, and others. 


ww 
‘ 


HIS CONVERSION AND BAPTISM. ‘ 


The explanation, also, of the indescribably wicked race of the contempo- 
raries of Christ, who proved their depravity by putting Him to death (érz 
aiperaı k.7.2.), is inappropriate. Such is the view I have previously taken, 
with de Wette and older commentators. But in this way the prophecy 
would be diverted from the person of the Messiah, and that to something 
quite obvious of itself; whereas, according to the above explanation, the 
aiperat amd Tr. y. 7) Co avr. stands in thoughtful and significant correlation to 
7) Kpiotg abrov ion. In these correlates lies the dirawovvn of the Humbled 
one, John xvi. 10. The Fathers have explained yevea in the interest of 
orthodoxy, but here irrelevantly, of the eternal generation of the Son.! 

Vv. 34-38. ’Aroxpıßeic]) for Philip had placed himself beside him in the 
chariot, ver. 31; and this induced the eunuch, desirous of knowledge and 
longing for salvation, to make his request, in which, therefore, there was so 
far involved a reply to the fact of Philip having at his solicitation joined him. 
— The question is one of utter unconcealed ignorance, in which, however, it 
is intelligently clear to him on what doubtful point he requires instruction. 
— avoiEac x.t.A.] a pictorial trait, in which there is here implied something 
solemn in reference to the following weighty announcement.” — xara ryv dd6v| 
along the way.” —ri kwAveı] coddpa Yuxjc tovto éxxarouévyc, Chrysostom. — 
Barrıodjvaı] Certainly in the euyyyeiicaro aizé trav ’Inoovv there was compre- 
hended also instruction concerning baptism. — Ver. 38. Observe the simply 
emphatic character of the circumstantial description. — éxéAevoe| to the 
charioteer. — Beza erroneously supposes that the water in which the baptism 
took place was the river Eleutherus. According to Jerome, de locis Hebr., 
it was at the village Bethsoron. Robinson, II. p. 749, believes that he has 
discovered it on the road from Beit Jibrin to Gaza For other opinions 
and traditions, see Hackett, p. 157 ; Sepp., p. 34. 

Vv. 39, 40. Luke relates an involuntary removal* of Philip effected by the 
Spirit of God (xvpiov)® He now had to apply himself to further work, 
after the design of the Spirit (ver. 29) had been attained in the case of the 
Ethiopian. The Spirit snatched him away (comp. John vi. 15), in which 
act not only the impulse and the impelling power, but also the mode, is con- 
ceived of as miraculous—as a sudden unseen transportation as far as Ash- 
dod, ver.40. The sudden and quick hurrying away which took place on 
the impulse of the Spirit ° is the historical element in the case, to which 
tradition, and how easily this was suggested by the O. T. conception,’ 
annexed, in addition to the miraculous operative cause, also the miraculous 
mode of the event. But to go even beyond this admission, and to allow 
merely the country and person of the converted Ethiopian to pass as his- 
torical (Zeller), is wholly without warrant with such an operation of angel 
and Spirit as the narrative contains, when viewed in connection with the 


1 See Suicer, Thes. I. p. 744. 5 Comp. 2 Cor. xii. 2, 4; 1 Thess. iv. 17; 

2 See on Matt. v. 2; 2 Cor. vi. 11. Comp. Ezek. iii. 14; 1 Kings xviii. 12; 2 Kings ii. 
Acts x. 34. 16; also what happened to Habakkuk in Bel 

3 See Winer, p. 374 (E. T. 499). and the Dragon, 33. 

4 The excellent Bengel strangely remarks : 6 Kuinoel, Olshausen, Comp. also Lange, 


that one or other of the apostles may have apost. Zeitalt. IL. p. 113. 
gone even to America ‘* pari trajectu.”’ "In 1 Kings xviii. 12 ; 2 Kings ii. 16. 


178 CHAP. VIII.—-NUTES. 

supersensuous causal domain of N. T. facts in general.— éropeteto yap «.r.A.] 
he obtained no further sight of Philip, for he made no halt, nor did he 
take another road in order to seek again him who was removed from him, 
but he went on his way with joy, namely, over the salvation obtained in 
Christ (comp. xvi. 34). He knew that the object of his meeting with 
Philip was accomplished. — eic "AZurov] He was found removed to Ashdod.} 
Transported thither, he again became visible.” —*Afwroc * WW, Josh. xiii. 
3, 1 Sam. v. 5, was a Philistine city, the seat of a prince ; after its destruc- 
tion by Jonathan rebuilt by Gabinius,* 270 stadia to the north of Gaza, to 
the west of Jerusalem, now as a village named Hsdud.®° — Katoapsıa is the 
celebrated Kao. Xeßaorn, so called in honour of Augustus, built by Herod 
I. on the site of the Castellum Stratonis,—the residency of the Roman pro- 
curators, on the Mediterranean, sixty-eight miles north-west of Jerusalem ; 
it became the abode of Philip; see xxi. 8. He thus journeyed northward 
from Ashdod, perhaps through Ekron, Ramah, Joppa, and the plain of 
Sharon. There is no reason to regard the notice éwo . . . Karoapeıav as 
prophetic, and to assume that Philip, at the time of the conversion of 
Cornelius, x. 1 ff., was not yet in Caesarea,® seeing that Cornelius is by 
special divine revelation directed to Peter, and therefore has no occasion to 
betake himself to Philip. 


Notes BY AMERICAN EDITOR. 


(a!) A great persecution, V. 1. 


On the very day of the murder of Stephen, a fierce persecution began against 
the church. Probably the mob may have hastened from the scene of outrage 
and violence to the assemblies of the believers, in order to disperse them. 
This violent, sudden outbreak against those who, until now, had been not only 
tolerated, but apparently approved, arose doubtless from the fact that Stephen, 
who was a Greek, had not only preached Jesus, but had declared that the city 
and temple would be destroyed, and the gospel preached to all nations. The 
Pharisees, hitherto neutral, now made common cause with their rivals, the 
Sadducees, against the sect. The prudent cautions of Gamaliel were ignored ; 
the agents of the civil government interfered not for the protection of 
the Christians, and the wild fury of fanatical bigotry, maddened by blood, 
rushed upon the defenceless witnesses for the truth, and scattered them. Thus 
by the violence of the enemies of Christ his followers were compelled to carry 
out his purpose intimated in Actsi. 8. The dispersion must have been very 
general, though not absolutely universal, as some, beside the apostles, must 
have remained, since Saul immediately afterward began to seize and imprison 
both men and women, 


1 Winer, pp. 887, 572 (E. T. 516, 769) ; Butt- 
mann, neut. Gr. p. 287 (E. T. 333). 

2 Comp. xxi. 13; Esth. 1.5; Xen. Anab. iii. 
4.13: eis rovrov de tov araduov Tıaoabepvns 
emebavn, 2 Macc. i. 33. 

3 Herod. ii. 157; Diod. xix. 85; in Strabo, 
Xvi. 29, p. 759; oxytone, incorrectly ; see Lip- 


sius, grammat. Unters. p. 30. 

4 Joseph. Antt. xiv. 5. 3. 

5 Volney, Travels, II. p. 251; Robinson, II. 
p. 629. See Ruetschi in Herzog’s Zncykl. IL 
p- 556. 

6 Schleiermacher. Lekebusch, Laurent. 


NOTES. 179 


{u!) Devout men carried Stephen. V. 2. 


How touching and affecting is the simple statement of Luke concerning the 
burial of Stephen, when contrasted with a subsequent elaborate legend : that 
“ Gamaliel appeared in a vision to Lucius, a presbyter of the church at Jeru- 
salem, and informed him where the body of Stephen lay. The high priest had 
designed that the corpse should be devoured by beasts of prey ; but Gamaliel 
rescued it, and buried it at his own villa at Caphar Gamala, twenty miles 
from Jerusalem, All the apostles attended the funeral, and the mourning 
lasted forty days. Gamaliel himself, and Nicodemus, were afterward buried in 
the same grave. The relics of Stephen, thus miraculously discovered, were 
brought to Jerusalem, and authenticated by many miracles wrought by them 
among the people.’ 

When the first martyr “fell asleep,’’ ‘‘ Saul was consenting unto his death,” 
but we do not find him attending the funeral. He believed that one who was 
promulgating doctrines subversive of the true religion had met a severe but 
deserved fate. While doubtless pitying the sufferings of the man, he rejoiced 
in the doom of the heretic, and hastened to bring otherstoasimilarend. The 
two men met once and parted, one to enter into the joy of his Lord, the other 
to lay waste the church of Christ. The late Rev. William Arnot says: “I 
have often tried to conceive the scene at the next meeting of these two men, 
when Saul also became a martyr and joined the general assembly and church of 
the firstborn.” ‘We have not the means of determining whether Stephen or 
Saul owed most to the Lord. By looking on the surface of the sea we cannot 
tell what place is deepest ; but we know that all places, alike the deepest and 
the shallowest, are filled, and all present one level surface to the sky. In like 
manner, as far as we can perceive, all the forgiven are alike. It is only He who 
bore their sins who can distinguish the aggravations of every case. Certain it 
is that the first martyr, and the man who kept the clothes of the executioners 
at his death, are now at peace. They are one in Christ.” 


(1!) Simon believed. V. 13. 


He who had bewildered others by his sorcery, which he knew to be unreal, 
was bewildered by the reality of the power possessed by Philip, and was 
doubtless impressed by the doctrine of the Messiah preached by the evangel- 
ist. He made an outward profession of his faith and was baptized. His con- 
version was spurious and his profession insincere, His mind was aroused, but 
his conscience was not awakened. He desired the advantages which the gos- 
pel proffered, but he did not submit to what it demands. A sense of sin, a 
conviction of error, and any attempt at reparation for the wrongs he had done, 
are all wanting in his case. There may be subscription to a scriptural creed, 
the observance of the external ordinances of Christianity, and even some service 
rendered to the church, without genuine repentance or saying faith. A man 
may have been baptized, and yet be “in the gall of bitterness and in the bond 
of iniquity.” The wickedness of this man, who “thought that the gift of God 
may be purchased with money,”’ has not only given a name to the ecclesiasti- 
cal offence of purchasing preferment or position in the church, which is 
branded as Simony, butit is a warning against uniting with the church, or seek- 
ing office therein, with a view to worldly advantages of any kind. 


18 CHAP. VIII.—NOTES. 


 (s') Samaritans. V. 14. 


A mixed or, as some suppose, a purely heathen race, introduced by the kings 
of Assyria to supply the place of the ten tribes, who had been mainly carried 
away, and assimilated to the Jews by the reception of the law of Moses. Min- 
gled with them were doubtless many Jews who were left after the captivity, 
and others who, as renegades, came to them from Judea. On the return of 
the Jews from the exile, they repeatedly sought to unite with them in rebuild- 
ing the temple, but were repulsed. They therefore erected a temple for them- 
selves on Gerizim, and there set up arival worship. The Jews and Samaritans 
mutually detested each other, and maintained a system of irritating hostility. 
Josephus says the Samaritans attacked and robbed the pilgrims on their way 
from Galilee to Jerusalem, and that, on one occasion, they desecrated the tem- 
ple by scattering dead men’s bones in the cloisters. They rigidly observed 
the law of Moses, and looked for the promised Messiah. They were there- 
fore in some measure prepared for the announcement of his coming, and 
hence the success of the gospel among them, 


(x!) Mission of Peter and John. Y. 14. 


These two apostles are frequently associated. They must have been warm 
personal friends. The striking contrast in their characters would unite them 
the more closely, and fit them to labor together. Peter fervid, zealous, impet- 
uous ; John mild, loving, persuasive. This is the last mention of John in the 
Acts, except once he is referred to in chap. xii. 2, where James is called the 
brother of John. In accordance with the directions of the Master, the early 
missionaries generally went out two by two. We read of Peter and John ; 
Paul and Barnabas ; Paul and Silas ; and Barnabas and Mark. 

The object of their mission at this time was of a general character—to in- 
quire into the state of things, supply what was wanting, and extend the right 
hand of fellowship to the believers in Samaria. 


(u!) They received the Holy Ghost. V. 17. 


Calvin on verse 16 writes: ‘‘ Surely Luke speaketh not in this place of the 
common grace of the Spirit, whereby God doth regenerate us, that we may be 
his children ; but of those singular gifts, wherewith God would have certain 
endued at the beginning of the gospel to beautify Christ’s kingdom,” 

By the Holy Ghost here we do not understand the regenerating and sanctify- 
ing agency of the Holy Spirit in the conversion and renewal of the soul ; but 
the impartation of such a presence of the Holy Spirit as is accompanied with 
supernatural gifts ; the miraculous influences of the Spirit, which were mani- 
fested by speaking with tongues, or other visible tokens. The spiritual condi- 
tion of those who ‘had received the word of God,’’ and ‘ were baptized in the name 
of the Lord Jesus,’’ was this: they had been spiritually quickened by the Spirit 
of God, and were saved by Him into whose name they were baptized, but they 
had not received any special gifts which were visibly manifested, as the be- 
lievers elsewhere had received, and as they also received by the laying on of 
the hands of the apostles—whose peculiar prerogative it seems to have been to 
confer such gifts. The case of Ananias, in his relation to Paul, is altogether 
of an exceptional kind, 


CRITICAL REMARKS, 181 


CHAPTER IX. 


Ver. 3. dro] A BCG N, min. have éx, which is, no doubt, recommended by 
Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. Tisch. and Born., but is inserted from xxii. 6 
to express the meaning more strongly.—Instead of repıyorpay. Lachm. has 
mepéotpay. A weakly attested error of transcription.—Ver. 5. kvpio¢ eimev] 
Deleted by Lachm. Tisch. Born., after A B C, min. Vulg. In some other 
witnesses (including N), only «vpiog is wanting ; and in others, only eier. 
The Recepta is a clumsy filling up of the original bare 6 d&.— After dıoreıc, Elz., 
following Erasm., has (instead of a/Ad, ver. 6) oxAnpöv cot rpög KévTpa Aakrilew. 
Tpeuov te kai Haußov eime' Küpıe, Ti pe Gédecg mowjoar; Kal 6 Kipiog mpd¢ auröv, 
against all Greek codd. Chrys. Theoph. and several vss.1_ An old amplification 
from xxii. 10, xxvi. 14. — Ver. 8. oidéva] A* B 8, Syr. utr. Ar. Vulg. have oidév. 
So Lachm. Tisch. Born, The Recepta has originated mechanically from fol- 
lowing ver. 7. — Ver. 10. The order &v öpduarı 6 kip. (Lachm, Tisch. Born.) has 
the decisive preponderance of testimony. — Ver. 12. év dpamati] is wanting in 
A 8, lot: Copt. Aeth. Vulg. BC have it after ävdpa (so Born.), Deleted by 
Lachm. and Tisch. An explanatory addition to eidev. —Instead of yeipa, 
Lachm. and Born. have rüc xeipac, after BE, vss. ; also A C &,* lot, which, 
however, do not read tac. From ver. 17, and because erırd). Tae yeipac is the 
usual expression in the N. T, (in the active always so, except this passage). — 
Ver. 17. axykoa] Lachm. Born. read 7xovoa, which is decidedly attested by 
ABCEN, min. — Ver. 18. After avésAepé te, Elz. has rapaypjua, which is 
wanting in decisive witnesses, and, after Erasm. and Bengel, is deleted by 
Lachm. Tisch. Born. A more precisely defining addition. — Ver. 19. After 
éyévero de Elz, has 6 Saidoc, against decisive testimony. Beginning of a 
church-lesson. — Ver. 20. ’Inooöv] Elz. reads Xperröv, against A B C E N, min. 
vss. Iren. Amid the prevalent interchange of the two names this very pre- 
ponderance of authority is decisive. But ’Iyooöv is clearly confirmed by the 
following örı otté¢ Eorw 6 vids Tr. Oeod, as also by ver. 22, where otros necessarily 
presupposes a preceding ’Inooös. — Ver. 24. raperypovv re] Lachm. Tisch. Born. 
read rapernpoüvro 0? kai, which is to be preferred according to decisive testi- 
mony. — airdv of uaßnrai] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read of pa@yrai airod, after 
ABCFN, lot-* Or. Jer. This reading has in its favour, along with the 
preponderance of witnesses, the circumstance that before (ver. 19) and after 
(ver. 26) the wa@yrai are mentioned absolutely, and the expression oj pa). ait od 
might appear objectionable. In what follows, on nearly the same evidence, 
dıa Tod Teiyous KabjKav aizév is to be read. — Ver. 26. After rapay. dé Elz. has 
6 ZaöAos, E, 6 Mattos. An addition. — eis] BEGH, min. Oec. Theophyl. 
have év, recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. The 
evidence leaves it doubtful ; but considering the frequency of napayiv. with sis 


1 The words are found in Vulg. Ar. pol. Theophyl. 2, Oec. Hilar. in Ps. ii., but with 
Aeth. Arm. Syr. p. (with an asterisk) Slav. many variations of detail. 


182 CHAP. IX., 1-9. 


(xiii. 14, xv. 4; Matt. ii. 1; John viii. 2), whereas it does not further occur 
with év in the N. T., &v would be more easily changed into eis than the con- 
verse. — £meıparo] Lachm. and Born. read éreipagev (after ABC S, min.), which 
was easily introduced as the usual form (meıpaouaı only again oceurs in the 
N. T,. in xxvi. 21; Heb. iv. 15?).— Ver. 28. &v 'Iepovo.] Lachm. Tisch. Born. 
have rightly adopted eis 'lepovs., which already Griesb. had approved after 
ABCEG 8, min. Chrys. Oec. Theophyl. &v was inserted as more suitable 
than eig, which was not understood. Accordingly, cai before raßpno. is to be 
deleted with Lachm. and Tisch., following ABC 8, min. vss. An insertion 
for the sake of connection. — Ver. 29. ‘EAAnviorac] A has "EA? nvas. From xi. 
20.— Ver. 31. Lachm. Tisch. Born. read 7... éxxAnoia . . . eliyev eip. oiko- 
Öouovuevn kK. mopevouevn . . . EnAmdüvero, after ABC S, min. and several vss., 
including Vulg. Rightly. The original 7 wiv obv ExkAnoia, «.r.A., in accord- 
ance with the apostolic idea of the unity of the church, was explained by ai uev 
obv ErkAnoiaı x doar (so K), which rdca was again deleted, and thus the Recepta 
arose. — Ver. 33. Instead of xpa33aTw, xpaj33urtov is to be adopted, with Lachm. 
Tisch. Born., on preponderating evidence. — Ver. 38. déxvyca. .. . adrar], 
Lachm. and Tisch. read öxvjonc . . . judy, after A B C* E 8, lo Vulg., which 
with this preponderance of evidence is the more to be preferred, as internal 
grounds determine nothing for the one reading or the other. 


(m!) Vv. 1, 2. *Erc] See viii. 3, hence the narrative does not stand isolated 
(Schleiermacher). — &urv&ov areırnc x. dvor cic 7. wal. | out of threatening and 
murder breathing hard at the disciples, whereby is set forth the passionateness 
with which he was eager to terrify the Christians by threats, and to hurry 
them to death. In äurveov, observe the compound, to which the eic r. ual. 
belonging to it corresponds ; so that the word signifies: to breathe hard at 
or upon an object ; as often also in classical writers, yet usually with the 
dative instead of with cic. The expression is stronger than if it were said 
mvEwv aretdiy «.7.2.1 The genitives areıyc and ¢évov denote whence this 
éurvéerv issued ; threatening and murder, i.e. sanguinary desire (Rom. i. 29), 
was withir him what excited and sustained his breathing hard.*— 7 äpxıepei] 
If the conversion of Paul occurred in the year 35,° then Caiaphas was still 
high priest, as he was not deposed by Vitellius until the year 36.* Jonathan 
the son of Ananus (Joseph. Antt. xviii. 4.3) succeeded him; and he, after 
a year, was suceeeded by his brother Theophilus.’—(x') Aauaoxöc, PDT, the 
old capital of Syria, in which, since the period of the Seleucidae, so many 
Jews resided that Nero could cause 10,000 to be executed.® It was specially 
to Damascus that the persecuting Saul turned his steps, partly, doubtless, 
because the existence of the hated sect in that city was well known to him— 
the church there may have owed its origin and its enlargement as well to the 
journeys of the resident Jews to the feasts, as to visits of the dispersed 
from Jerusalem; partly, perhaps, also, because personal connections promised 


1 Lobeck, ad Aj. p. 342; Boeckh, Zrpl. 3 Introduction, sec. 4. 
Pind. p. 341. 4 Anger, de temp. rat. p. 184. 
2 Comp. Eumveov duns, Josh. x. 40; govov 5 Joseph. Antt. xviil. 5. 3. 
mvecovra, Nonn. Dionys. 25; Aristop. Hg. p. 6 Joseph. Bell. Jud. i. 2. 25, ii. 20, 2. 


437; Winer, p. 192 (E. T. 255). 


CONVERSION OF SAUL. 183 


for his enterprise there the success which he desired. — rpös räc ovvayoy.], 
from which, consequently, the Christians had not as yet separated them- 
selves.'—The recognition of the letters of authorization at Damascus was not 
to be doubted, as that city was in the year 35 still under Roman dominion ; 
and Roman policy was accustomed to grant as much indulgence as possible 
to the religious power of the Sanhedrim, even in criminal matters, only the 
execution of the punishment of death was reserved to the Roman authority. 
— rüg ddov övrac] who should be of the way. The way, in the ethical sense, is 
here xar' !£oyijv the Christian, i.e. the characteristic direction of life as de- 
termined by faith on Jesus Christ (ödöc xvpiov, xviii. 25),—an expression in 
this absolute form peculiar to the Book of Acts,” but which certainly was 
in use in the apostolic church. Oecumenius indicates the substantial mean- 
ing: ryv Kata Xpıoröv eine molıreiav. — eivaı, with the genitive in the sense’of 
belonging to.* 

Vv. 3-9. The conversion of Saul does not appear, on an accurate considera- 
tion of the three narratives,‘ which agree in the main points, to have had 
the way psychologically prepared for it by scruples of conscience as to his perse- 
cuting proceedings. On the contrary, Luke represents it in the history at 
our passage, and Paul himself in his speeches,’ as in direct and immediate 
contrast to his vehement persecuting zeal, amidst which he was all of a 
sudden internally arrested by the miraculous fact from without.* Moreover, 
previous scruples and inward struggles are @ priori, in the case of a char- 
acter so pure—at this time only erring—firm, and ardently decided as he 
also afterwards continued to be, extremely improbable: he saw in the 
destruction of the Christian church only a fulfilment of duty and a merito- 
rious service for the glory of Jehovah.” For the transformation of his firm 
conviction into the opposite, of his ardent interest against the gospel into 
an ardent zeal for it, there was needed—with the pure resoluteness of his 
will, which even in his unwearied persecutions was just striving after a 
righteousness of his own*’—a heavenly power directly seizing on his inmost 
conscience ; and this he experienced, in the midst of his zealot enterprise, 
on the way to Damascus, when that perverted striving after righteousness 
and merit was annihilated. The light which from heaven suddenly shone 
around him brighter than the sun’ was no flash of lightning (o'!). The 
similarity of the expression in all the three narratives militates against this 
assumption so frequently made, and occurring still in Schrader ; and Paul 
himself certainly knew how to distinguish in his recollection a natural 
phenomenon, however alarming, from a oöc a7d Tov obpavov associated with 
a heavenly revelation." This g@¢ was rather the heavenly radiance, with 





1 Comp. Lechler, anost. Zeit. p. 290. 

2 xix. 9, xxii. 4, xxiv. 14, 22. 

3 See Bernhardy, p. 165; Winer, p. 184 (E. 
T. 244). 


7 xxii. 3; comp. Gal. i. 14; Phil. iii. 6. 

8 Phil. iii. 6. 

9 xxvi. 13. 

10 This applies in the main, also, against 


SIR XEI., XXVI. 

§ xxii. and xxvi. ; comp. also Gal. i. 14,15; 
Phil. iii. 12. 

® Comp. Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit. 
1864, p. 251 f. 


Ewald, p. 275, who assumes a dazzling celestial 
phenomenon of an unexpected and terrible 
nature, possibly a thunder-storm, or rather a 
deadly sirocco in the middle of a sultry day, 
etc. 


184 CHAP!IITX., 1-9: 


which the exalted Christ appearing in His défa is surrounded. In order to 
a scripturally true conception of the occurrence, moreover, we may not 
think merely in general of an internal vision produced by God ;! nor is it 
enough specially to assume a se/f-manifestation of Christ made merely to the 
inner sense of Saul,—although externally accompanied by the miraculous 
appearance of light,—according to which by an operation of Christ, who is 
in heaven, He presented Himself to the inner man of Saul, and made Him- 
self audible in definite words.” Onthe contrary, according to 1 Cor. xv. 8,° 
Christ must really have appeared to him in His glorified body.* For only 
the objective, this also against Ewald, and real corporeal appearance corre- 
sponds to the category of appearances, in which this is placed at 1 Cor. xv. 
8, as also to the requirement of apostleship, which is expressed in 1 Cor. 
ix. 1 most definitely, and that in view of Peter and the other original 
aposties, by röv Ktprov yudv Eopara.° The Risen One Himself was in the 
light which appeared, and converted Saul, and hence Gal. i. 1 : rov &yeipavroc 
avrov éx verpov, With which also Gal, i. 16° fully agrees ; comp. Phil. iii. 12. 
This view is rightly adopted, after the old interpreters, by Lyttleton,’ Hess, 
Michaelis, Haselaar,* and by most modern interpreters except the Tübingen 
School; as well as by Olshausen and Neander, both of whom, however, 
without any warrant in the texts, assume a psychological preparation by 
the principles of Gamaliel, by the speech of Stephen, and by the sight of 
his death. For the correct view comp. Baumgarten ; Diestelmaier ;’ Oer- 
tel,'° who also enlarges on the connection of the doctrine of the apostle with 
his conversion.'' On the other hand, de Wette does not go beyond an ad- 
mission of the enigmatical character of the matter ; Lange” connects the 
objective fact with a visionary perception of it; and Holsten,' after the ex- 
ample of Baur, attempts to make good the vision, which he assumes, as a 
real one, indeed, but yet as an immanent psychological act of Saul’s own mind, 
—a view which is refuted by the necessary resemblance of the fact to the 
other Christophanies in 1 Cor. xv.'* All the attempts of Baur and his 


1 Weiss, Schweizer, Schenkel, and others 

2 See my first edition; comp. Bengel, üb. 
d. Bekehr. Pauli, aus d. Lat. übers. v. Niet- 
hammer, Tüb. 1826. 

3 Comp. 1x. 1. 

4 Comp. ix. 17, 27. 

5 Comp. Paul in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1863, 
p. 182 ff. 

6 See in loc. 

7 On the conversion, étc., translated by Hahn, 
Hannov. 1751. 

8 Lugd. Bat. 1806. 

9 Jugendleben des Saulus, 1866, p. 37 ff. 

10 Paulus in d. Apostelgesch. p. 112 ff. 

11 See also Hofstede de Groot, Pauli con- 
versio praccipuus theologiae Paul. fons, Gro- 
ning. 1855, who, however, in setting forth this 
connection mixes up too much that is 
arbitrary. 

12 Apost. Zeitalt. II. p. 116 f. 

13 In Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1851, p. 223 ff. 


14 See, in opposition to Holsten, Beyschlag 
in the Stud. u. Krit. 1864, pp. 197 f., 231 f£.; 
Oertel, l.c. In opposition to Beyschlag, again, 
see Holsten, zum Evang. des Paulus u. Petr, 
p. 2 ff.; as also Hilgenfeld in his Zeils hr 
1864, p. 155 ff., who likewise starts from @ 
priori presuppositions, which do not agree 
with the exegetical results. These @ prioré 
presuppositions, marking the criticism of the 
Baur School, agree generally in the negation 
of miracle, as well as in the position that 
Christianity has arisen in the way of an 
immanent development of the human mind,— 
whereby the credibility of the Book of Acts 
is abandoned. With Holsten, Lang, relig. 
Charaktere, Paulus, p. 15 ff, essentially 
agrees ; as does also, with poetical embellish- 
ment, Hirzel in the Zeifs/immen, 1861.—Haus- 
rath, der Apostel Paulus, 1865, p. 23 f., con- 
tents himself with doubts, founded on Gal. 
15, which leave the measure of the historical 


CONVERSION OF SAUL. 185 


school to treat the event asa visionary product from the laboratory of 
Saul’s own thoughts are exegetical impossibilities, in presence of which 
Baur himself at last stood still acknowledging a mystery.’ It is no argu- 
ment against the actual bodily appearance, that the text speaks only of the 
light, and not of a human form rendered visible. For, while in general 
the glorified body may have been of itself inaccessible to the human eye, 
so, in particular, was it here as enclosed in the heavenly radiance ; and the 
texts relate only what was externally seen and apparent also to the others, 
—namely, the radiance of light, out of which the Christ surrounded by it 
made Himself visible only to Saul, as He also granted only to him to hear 
His words, which the rest did not hear.? Whoever, taking offence at the 
diversities of the accounts in particular points as at their miraculous tenor, 
sets down what is so reported as unhistorical, or refers it, with Zeller, to the 
psychological domain of nascent faith, is opposed, as regards the nature of 
the fact recorded, by the testimony of the apostle himself in 1 Cor. xv. 8, 
ix. 1, with a power sustained by his whole working, which is not to be 
broken, and which leads ultimately to the desperate shift of supposing in 
Paul, at precisely the most decisive and momentous point of his life, a self- 
deception as the effect of the faith existing in him ; in which case the nar- 
rative of the Book of Acts is traced to a design of legitimating the apostle- 
ship of Paul, which in the sequel is further confirmed by the authority of 
Peter. —Hardly deserving now of historical notice is the uncritical ration- 
alism of the method that preceded the critical school of Baur, by which? 
the whole occurrence was converted into a fancy-picture, in which the per- 
secutor’s struggles of conscience furnished the psychological ground and a 
sudden thunderstorm the accessories,—-a view with which some? associate 
the exegetical blunder of identifying the fact with 2 Cor. xii. 1 ff.; while 
Brennecke® makes Jesus, who was only apparently dead, appear to Saul to 
check his persecuting zeal. These earlier attempts to assign the conversion 
of the apostle to the natural sphere are essentially distinguished, in respect 


character in suspenso. Holtzmann, Judenth. u. In the case of a miraculous event so entirely 


Christenth. p. 540 ff., finds ‘‘ the—in the details 
—contradictory and legendary narrative” of 
the Book of Acts confirmed in the main by 
the hints of the apostle himself in his letters ; 
nevertheless, for the explanation of what 
actually occurred, he does not go beyond sug- 
gesting various possibilities, and finds it 
advisable “to ascribe to the same causes, 
from which it hecomes impossible absolutely 
to discover the orizin of the belief of the 
resurrection, such a range that they include 
also the event before Damascus.” 

1See his Christenth. d. drei ersten Jahrh. 
p. 45, ed. 2. 

2 See xxii.9. The statement, ix. 7 
ev THs hwvys, is evidently a trait of tradition 
already disfiguring the history, to which the 
apostle’s own narrative. as it is preserved at 
xxii. 9, must without hesitation be preferred. 


! akoVovres 


unique and extraordinary, such traditional 
variations in the certainly very often repeated 
narrative are so naturally conceivable, that it 
would, in fact, be surprising and suspicious 
if we should find in the various narratives no 
variation. To Luke himself such variations, 
amidst the unity of essentials, gave so little 
offence that he has adopted and includedthem 
unreconciled from his different sources. Baur 
transfers them to the laboratory of literary 
design, in which case they are urged for the 
purpose of resolving the historical fact into 
myth. See his Paulus, I. p. 71 ff., ed. 2. 

3 After Vitringa, Odss. p. 370, and particu- 
larly Eichhorn, Ammon, Boehme, Heinrichs, 
Kuinoel, and others. 

4 Emmerling and Bretschneider. 

5 After Bahrdt and Venturini. 


156 CHAP, IX., 4-9. 


of their basis, from those of the critical school of Baur and Holsten, by the 
circumstance that the latter proceed from the postulates of pantheistic, and 
the former from those of theistic, rationalism. But both agree in starting 
from the negation of a miracle, by which Saul could have come to be among 
the prophets, as they consign the resurrection of the Lord Himself from the 
dead to the same negative domain. In consequence of this, indeed, they 
cannot present the conversion of Paul otherwise than under the notion of 
an immanent process of his individual mental life.—azd r. oupavov] be- 
longs to tepijorp.* 

Vv. 4, 5. The light shone around him, and not his companions. Out of 
the light the present Christ manifested Himself at this moment to his view : 
he has seen the Lord,* who afterwards makes Himself known also by name ; 
and the persecutor, from terror at the heavenly vision, falls to the ground, 
when he hears the voice speaking in Hebrew :* Saul, Saul, ete. — ri pe dıo- 
keg 3] Ti wap’ éuov wéya } pukpov AOlkyuévog ravra roıeig ; Chrysostom. Christ 
Himself is persecuted in His people. Luke x. 16. ‘‘Caput pro membris 
clamabat,’’ Augustine. — ri¢ ei, xipre 3]. On the question whether Saul, dur- 
ing his residence in Jerusalem, had personally seen Christ* or not, comp. on 
2 Cor. v. 16, no decision can at all be arrived at from this passage, as the 
form in which the Lord presented Himself to the view of Saul belonged to 
the heavenly world and was surrounded with the glorious radiance, and 
Saul himself, immediately after the momentary view and the overwhelming 
impression of the incomparable appearance, fell down and closed his eyes. 
—Observe in ver. 5 the emphasis of éyé and od. 

Ver. 6. ’AAAa] breaking off.°—According to chap. xxvi., Jesus forthwith 
gives Saul the commission to become the apostle of the, Gentiles, which, 
according to the two other narratives, here and chap. xxii., is only given 
afterwards through the intervention of Ananias. This diversity is sufficient- 
ly explained by the fact that Paul in the speech before Agrippa abridges 
the narrative, and puts the commission, which was only subsequently con- 
veyed to him by the instrumentality of another, at once into the mouth of 
Christ Himself, the author of the commission ; by which the thing in itself, 
the command issued by Christ to him, is not affected, but merely the ex- 
actness of the representation, the summary abbreviation of which on this 
point Paul might esteem as sufficient before Agrippa.° 

Ver. 7. Eiorykeicav éveoi’?] According to xxvi. 14, they all fell to the earth 
with Saul. This diversity is not, with Bengel, Haselaar, Kuinoel, Baum- 
garten, and others, to be obviated by the purely arbitrary assumption, that 
the companions at the first appearance of the radiance had fallen down, but 
then had risen again sooner than Saul ; but it is to be recognised as an un- 


5 See on Mark xvi. 7, and Baumlein, Partik. 
p. 15. 


1 Comp. xxii’ 6, xxvi. 13; Xen. Cyr. iv. 2. 
15: dos er TOU oVpavod mpobares. On meptac- 


Tparteıv, comp. Juvenc. in Stob. exvii. 9; 4 
Mace. iv. 10. 

2 (1 Cor. ix. 1, xv. 8), Acts x. 17, 27. 

83 xxvi. 14. 

4 Schrader, Olshausen, Ewald, Keim, Bey- 
schlag, and others. 


6 In opposition to Zeller, p. 193. 

7 éveds, dumb, speechless (here, from terror),is 
to be written with one v (not evveös), as is done 
by Lachm. Tisch. Born. after ABC EI. 
See on the word, Valck. ad h./. ; Bornem, ad 
Xen. Anab. iv. 5. 33; Ruhnk. ad Tim. p. 102. 


SAUL FASTING IN DAMASCUS. 187 
essential non-agreement of the several accounts, whereby both the main 
substance of the event itself, and the impartial conscientiousness of Luke 
in not arbitrarily harmonizing the different sources, are simply confirmed 
(P'). —dxobovres uév Tas @wvyc] does not agree with xxii. 9.’ The artificial 
attempts at reconciliation are worthless, namely : that r7c gwvijc, by which 
Orhist’s voice is meant, applies to the words of Paul ;° or, that gwvy is here 
a noise (thunder), but in xxii. 9 an articulate voice ;? or, that jovoay in xxii. 
9 denotes the understanding of the voice,* or the definite giving ear in 
reference to the speaker,’ which is at variance with the fact, that in both 
places there is the simple contradistinction of seeing and hearing ; hence 
the appeal to John xii. 28, 29 is not suitable, and still less the comparison 
of Dan. x. 7. — uydéva dé Oewp.] But seeing no one, from whom the voice 
might have come ; und£va is used, because the participles contain the sub- 
jective cause of their standing perplexed and speechless. It is otherwise in 
ver. 8: ovdév éBAere. 

Vv. 8, 9. 'Avewyuévov dé rov o¢faAu.] Consequently Saul had lain on the 
ground with closed eyes since the appearance of the radiance (ver. 4),— 
which, however, as the appearance of Jesus for him is to be assumed as in 
and with the radiance, cannot prove that he had not really and personally 
seen the Lord. -—oidév £ßAere] namely, because he was blinded by the heaven- 
ly light, and not possibly in consequence of the journey through the desert, 
see xxii. 11. The connection inevitably requires this explanation by what 
immediately follows ; nor is the Recepta oidéva 232. (see the critical remarks) 
to be explained otherwise than of being blinded,* in opposition to Haselaar 
and others, who refer oidéva to Jesus. — u) BAéxwv| he was for three days 
without being able to see, i.e. blind,’ so that he had not his power of vision.” 
Hence here „7 from the standpoint of the subject concerned ; but after- 
wards ov« and oidé, because narrating objectively. — oik égayev ovdé Erıev] an 
absolute negation of eating and drinking,’ and not “a cibi potusve largioris 
usu abstinebat,’’ Kuinoel. By fasting Saul partly satisfied the compunction 
into which he could not but now feel himself brought for the earlier wrong 
direction of his efforts, and partly prepared himself by fasting and prayer 
(ver. 11) for the decisive change of his inward and outward life, for which, 
according to ver. 6, he waited a special intimation. See ver. 18. 


1 See the note on ver. 3 ff. text, and may only be considered as the edi- 


2 So, against the context, Chrysostom, Am- 
monitus, Oecumenius, Camerarius, Castalio, 
Beza, Vatablus, Clarius, Erasmus Schmid, 
Heumann, and others. 

3 So erroneously, in opposition to ver. 4, 
Hammond, Elsner, Fabricius, ad Cod. Apocr. 
N.T., p. 442, Rosenmiiller, Morus, Heinrichs 

4So, after Grotius and many older inter- 
preters, in Wolf, Kuinoel, and Hackett. 

5 Bengel, Baumgarten. 

® That the blinding took place as a symbol 
of the previous spiritual blindness of Saul 
(Calvin, Grotius, de Wette, Baumgarten, and 
others) is not indicated by anything in the 


Syiny application of the history, although 
Baur makes the formation of the legend at- 
tach itself to this idea. That blinding of Saul 
Was a simple consequence of the heavenly ra- 
diance, and served (as also the fasting) to 
withdraw him for a season wholly from the 
outer world, and to restrict him to his inner 
life. And the blindness befell Saul alone : 
iva un KOLWOY Kal ws amo TUxns TO mados 
vouodn, aAAa Velas mpovolas, Vecumenilis. 

7 John ix. 39; Ellendt, Zex. Soph. I. p. 308. 

® Comp. Winer, p. 453 (E. T. 610). 

® John iii. 7; Esth. iv. 16. 


188 CHAP. Ix., 10-18. 


Ver. 10. ‘O0 xöpıog] Christ.!— év öpäuarı] in a vision ;? whether awake or 
asleep, the context does not decide, not even by avacrdc, ver. 11. Eich- 
horn’s view, with which Kuinoel and partially also Heinrichs agree, — 
that Saul and Ananias had already been previously friends, and that the 
appearance in a dream as naturally resulted in the case of the former from 
the longing to speak with Ananias again and to get back sight by virtue 
of a healing power which was well known to him, as in the case of Ananias, 
who had heard of his friend’s fate on the way and of his arrival and 
dream, —is a fiction of exegetical romance manufactured without the slight- 
est hint in the text, and indeed in opposition to vv. 11 f., 14. The course 
of the conversion, guided by Christ directly revealing Himself, is entirely 
in accordance with its commencement (vv. 3-9): ‘‘ but we know not the 
law according to which communications of a higher spiritual world to men 
living in the world of sense take place, so as to be able to determine any- 
thing concerning them’’ (Neander). According to Baur, the two corre- 
sponding visions of Ananias and (ver. 12) Saul are literary parallels to the 
history of the conversion of Cornelius. And that Ananias was a man of 
legal piety (xxii. 12), is alleged by Schneckenburger* and Baur to be in 
keeping with the tendency of Luke, although he does not even mention it 
here ; Zeller, p. 196, employs even the frequent occurrence of the name * to 
call in question whether Ananias ‘‘ played a part ’’ in the conversion of the 
apostle at all. 

Vv. 11, 12. There is a “straight street,’’ according to Wilson, still in 
Damascus.? — Zavrov övönarı] Saul by name, Saul, as he is called.® — idov 
yap . . . avaßA&ılm] contains the reason of the intimation given : for, behold, 
he prays, is now therefore in the spiritual frame which is requisite for what 
thou art to do to him, and—he is prepared for thy very arrival to help him 
— he has seen in a vision a man, who came in and, etc. — Imposition of hands" 
is here also the medium of communication of divine grace. — avdpa övön. 
'Avaviav] This is put, and not the simple oé, to indicate that the person 
who appeared to Saul had been previousiy entirely unknown to him, and 
that only on occasion of this vision had he learned his name, Ananias. 

Vv. 13-16. Ananias, in ingenuous simplicity of heart, expresses his 
scruples as to conferring the benefit in question on a man who, according 
to information received from many (arö r024.), had hitherto shown himself 
entirely unworthy of it (ver. 13), and from whom even now only evil to 
the cause of Christ was to be dreaded after his contemplated restoration 
to sight (ver. 14). Whether Ananias had obtained the knowledge of the 
inquisitorial &£ovoia which Saul had at Damascus by letters from Jerusalem,® 
or from the companions of Saul,’ or in some other way, remains undeter- 


1 See vv. 13, 14, 17. loc., and Petermann, Reisen im Orient, I. p. 
2x.3,xvi.9, al. ; differently vii. 31. 98. 
3 p. 168 f. 6Comp. Xen. Anab. 1.04, Tz Tzorısene 
4 Chap. v. and xxili. 2, xxiv. 1 ®awaros övoparı. Tob. vi. 10; 4 Macc. v. 3. 
5 The house in which Paul is said to have 7 Comp. on viii. 15. 

dwelt is still pointed out. See also the Aus- 8 Wolf, Rosenmiiller. 


land, 1866, No. 24, p. 564. Comp. Hackett in ® Kuinoel. 


ANANIAS BAPTIZES SAUL. 189 


mined. — roic äyioıc cov] to the saints belonging to Thee, i.e. to the Christians : 
for they, through the atonement appropriated by means of faith,' having 
been separated from the xécuoc and dedicated to God, belong to Christ, 
who has purchased them by His blood (xx. 28). — &v 'Ispovo. belongs to 
kaka Emoinoe. — Ver. 14. As to the ériarcioba of Christ, see on vil. 59. It 
is the distinctive characteristic of Christianity.? — Ver. 15. oxevos éxdoyyc] @ 
chosen vessel (instrument). In this vessel Christ will bear, etc. The geni- 
tive of quality emphatically stands in place of the adjective.* — rov Bactaca 
k.r.A.| contains the definition of ox. &&A. wor &oriv oito¢g : to bear my Messianic 
name, by the preaching of the same, before Gentiles, and Kings, and Israel- 
ates. Observe how the future work of converting the Gentiles* is presented 
as the principal work (é@vav x. BaoıA.), to which that of converting the Jews 
is related as a supplemental accessory ;° hence viov ’Iop. is added with r&.° — 
The yap, ver. 16, introduces the reason why He has rightly called him oxevoc 
éxAoyne K.7.A. 3 for I shall show him how much he must suffer for my name, for 
its glorification.’ The éyé placed first has the force of the power of dis- 
posal in reference to oxevoc éx2. por éotiv: Tam He, who will place it always 
before his eyes. On this Bengel rightly remarks: ‘‘re ipsa, in toto ejus 
cursu,’’—even to his death. According to de Wette, the reference is to 
revelation : the apostle will suffer with prophetic foresight." But such rev- 
elations are only known from his later ministry, whereas the experimental 
irddeveic commenced immediately, and brought practically to the conscious- 
ness of the apostle that he was to be that oxevoc éxAoy7¢ amidst much suf- 
fering. 

Vv. 17, 18. ’AdeAgé] here in the pregnant sense of the Christian brother- 
hood. already begun. — The ’Inooüc . npxov. not to be considered as a 
parenthesis, and the kai 7%700. rveuu. ay. make it evident to the reader that 
the information and direction of the Lord, ver. 15, was fuller. —«. rAyol. 
mv. ay.| which then followed at the baptism, ver. 18. — And immediately 
there fell from his eyes—not merely : it was to him as if there fell—as it were 
scales.° A scale-like substance had thus overspread the interior of his eyes, 
and this immediately fell away, so that he again saw—evidently a mirac- 
ulous and sudden cure, which Eichhorn ought not to have represented as 
the disappearance of a passing cataract by natural means, fasting, joy, the 
cold hand of an old man ! — évicyvcev]| in the neuter sense : he became strong." 
Here of corporeal strengthening. 





1 Comp. on Rom. i. 7. 

2 Ver. 21; 1 Cor. i.2; Rom. x. 10 ff. 

3 Herm. ad Vig. p. 890 f.; Winer, p. 222 (E. 
T. 297). Comp. oxkevos avayxyns, Anthol. xi. 
27. 6. 

4 Comp, Gal. i. 16. 

5 The apostle’s practice of always attempt- 
ing, first of all, the work of conversion among 
the Jews is not contrary to this, as his des 
tination to the conversion of the Gentiles is 
expressly designated without excluding the 


Jews, und accordingly was to be followed out‘ 


without abandoning the historical course of 


salvation : “IovSatw Te mpotov Kat "EAAyrı, 
Rom. i. 16. And what Paul was to atfain in 
this way, entirely corresponds to the expres- 
sion in our passage. 

8 See Herm. ad Zur. Med. 4f.: Klotz, ad 
Devar. p. 743 f. ; Winer, p. 404 (E. T. 542). 

7 See on v. 41. 

8 Com. xx. 23, 25, xxi. 11. 

® Comp. Tob. xi. 13. 

10 See Aristot. Hih x. 9; 1 Macc. vii. 25; 3 
Macc. ii. 32: Test. XII. Patr. p. 583; and 
examples in Kypke, II. p. 44, and from the 
LXX. in Schleusner, II. p. 367 f. 


190 CHAP. IxX., 19-26. 


Vv. 19, 20 f. But he continued some days with the Christians there, and 
then he immediately preached Jesus in the synagogues, at Damascus, namely, 
that He was the Son of God.‘ This is closely connected, and it is only with 
extreme violence that Michaelis and Heinrichs have referred ver. 19 to the 
time before the journey to Arabia,? and ver. 20 to the time after that 
journey. Pearson placed the Arabian journey before ver. 19, which is at 
variance with the close historical connection of vv. 18 and 19; just as the 
connection of vv. 21 and 22 does not permit its being inserted before ver. 
22 (Laurent). The ciféuc in Gal. lc. is decisive against Kuinoel, Olshausen, 
Ebrard, Sepp, p. 44 f., and others, who place this journey and the return 
to Damacus after ver. 25. The Arabian excursion, which certainly was but 
brief, is historically—for Luke was probably not at all aware of it, and has 
at least left it entirely out of account as unimportant for his object, which 
has induced Hilgenfeld and Zeller to impute his silence to set purpose— 
most fitly referred with Neander to the period of the juépac ixavai, ver. 23.° 
The objection, that Saul would then have gone out of the way of his 
opponents and their plot against him would not have taken place,* is 
without weight, as this hostile project may be placed after the return from 
Arabia.® It is, however, to be acknowledged * that the time from the 
conversion to the journey to Jerusalem cannot bave been known to Luke 
as so long an interval as it actually was—three years, Gal. i. 18 — seeing 
that for such a period the expression indefinite, no doubt, but yet measured 
by days (it is otherwise at ver. viii. 11), quépae ikavai, ver. 23,7 is not 
sufficient. — &v raic ovvay.] our nexüvero, Chrysostom. — 6 roptinoas] see on 
Gal. i. 13. — kai ode x.7.4.] and hither, to Damascus, he had come for the 
object, that he, etc. How contradictory to his conduct now !® On the 
subjunctive ayayn, see Winer.® 

Vv. 22, 23. But Saul, in presence of such judgments, became strong in 
his new work all the more.°— ovv&xvve] made perplexed, put out of countenance, 
1 The form xövo instead of yéw belongs to late 
Greek." —ovußıBaz.] proving.®— ErAnpovvro, as in Vii. 23. ikavai, as in ver. 48, 
xviii, 18, xxii. 7, of a considerable time,'* especially common with Luke (q’). 

Vv. 24, 25. Ilapernpovvro dé kai (see the critical remarks), but they watched 
also, ete., contains what formed a special addition to the danger mentioned 


ETEOTOMLCEV, OVK ELA TL ELTELD. 


16 vids Tod ®eod occurs only here (xiii. 33 is 
a quotation from the O. T.) in the narrative 
of the Book of Acts. The historical fact is: 
Paul announced that Jesus was the Messiah, 
see ver, 22. He naturally did not as yet enter 
on the metaphysical relation of the Sonship of 
God; but this is implied in the conception of 
Luke, when he from his fully formed Pauline 
standpoint uses this designation of the Mes- 
siah. 

2G all ade 

3 Comp. on Gal. i. 17 and Introduction to 
Romans, sec. 1. 

4 De Wette. 

5 With this agrees also the eviews, Gal. i. 
16, which requires the Arabian journey to be 


put very soon after the conversion, conse- 
quently at the very commencement of the 
If this is done, that 
evdews is not opposed to our view given above 
(in opposition to Zeller, p. 202). 

®§ Comp. Baur. 

7 Comp. ver. 43, xviii. 18, xvii. 7. 

8 Quasi dicerent: At etiam Saul inter pro- 
phetas,’’ 1 Sam. x. 11, Grotius. 

9p 270 (E.T. 359). 

10 Nägelsb. on the iad, p. 227, ed. 3. 

11 Chrysostom. Comp. on ii. 6. 

12 Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 726. 

13 Comp. 1 Cor. ii. 16; Schleusner, Thes. 8.v.$ 
Jamblich. 60. 

14 Plat. Legg. p. 7386 C, 


nnepaı ikaval, ver. 23. 


PREACHING AND FLIGHT. 191 


in ver, 23. The subject is the Jews ; they did it—and thereby the apparent 
difference with 2 Cor. xi, 33 is removed—on the obtained permission or 
order of the Arabian ethnarch.! More artificial attempts at reconciliation 
are quite unnecessary.’— vi wabyrai abrod (see the critical remarks), opposed 
to the ’Iovdaior, ver. 23. Saul had already gained scholars among the Jews of 
Damascus ; they rescued him from the plot of their fellow Jews, in opposition 
to de Wette’s opinion, that disciples of the apostle were out of the ques- 
tion. — dia tov tei youc} through the wall: whether an opening found in it, or 
the window of a building abutting on the city-wall, may have facilitated 
the passage. The former is most suited to the mode of expression. — év 
orvpidı] see on Matt. xv. 37.° 

Vv. 26, 27. Three years after his conversion (Gal. i. 18), Paul went for 
the first time back to Jerusalem.‘ Thus long, therefore, had his first 
labours at Damascus lasted, though interrupted by the Arabian journey. 
For the connection admits of no interruption between vv. 25 and 26, the 
flight, ver. 25, and the rapayevdu. oé eig ‘Iepovc., ver 26, stand in close rela- 
tion to each other. Driven from Damascus, the apostle very naturally and 
wisely directed his steps to the mother-church in Jerusalem, in order to 
enter into connection with the older apostles, particularly with Peter, Gal. 
i. 18. —roi¢ pabyr.| to the Christians. — kai xavte¢ &90ß.] kai is the simple 
and, which annexes the unfavourable result of the éecp. #072. roic wal. Ob- 
serve, moreover, on this statement—(1) that it presupposes the conversion 
to have occurred not long ago; (2) that accordingly the juépar ixavai, ver. 
23, cannot have been conceived by Luke as a period of three years ; (3) but 
that—since according to Gal. i. 18 Paul nevertheless did not appear till 
three years after at Jerusalem—the distrust of all, here reported, and the 
introduction by Barnabas resting on that distrust as its motive, cannof be 
historical, as after three years’ working the fact that Paul was actually a 
Christian could not but be undoubted in the church at Jerusalem.*® — örı 
éotiv paf.| to be accented with Rinck and Bornemann, éorw. — Bapväßac] 
see on iv. 36. Perhaps he was at an earlier period acquainted with the 
apostle. -— &rıaßöu.] graphically : he grasped him by the hand, and led him ; 
auröv, however, is governed by jyaye, for ériAauBavecfa is always conjoined 
with the genitive.® — xpöc rovc aroor.] an approximate and very indefinite 


1 Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 33. 

2 Comp. Wieseler, p. 142. 

3On the spelling ovprd:, attested by C N, 
see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 113. 

4 According to Laurent, neutest. Stud. p. 70 
ff., the journey to Jerusalem in our passage is 
different from the journey in Gal. i. 18. The 
Jatter is to be placed before ix. 26. But in that 
case the important journey, ix. 26, would be 
left entirely unmentioned in the Epistle to the 
Galatians (for it is not to be found at Gal i. 
22, 23),—which is absolutely irreconcilable 
with the very object of narrating the journeys 
in that’ Epistle. 

5 To explain the distrust from the enigmat- 


ically long disappearance and re-emergence 
of the apostle (Lange, Apost. Zeitalt. 1. p. 98) 
is quite against the context of the Book of 
Acts, in which the Arabian journey has no 
place. The distrust may in some measure be 
explained from a dong retirement in Arabia 
(comp. Ewald, p. 403), especially if, with Nean- 
der and Ewald, we suppose also a prolonged 
interruption of communication between Da- 
mascus and Jerusalem occasioned by the war 
of Aretas, which, however, does not admit of 
being verified. 

® So in xvi. 19, xviii. 17. Comp. Luke xiv. 
4; Buttm. neuf. Gr. p. 140 (E. T. 160). 


192 CHAP. IX., 27-30. 


statement, expressed by the plural of the category ; for, according to Gal. 
i. 18, only Peter and James the Lord’s brother were present ; but not at 
variance with this,! especially as Luke betrays no acquaintance with the 
special design of the journey *—a design with which, we may add, the 
working related in vv. 28-30, although it can only have lasted for fifteen 
days, does not conflict, A purposely designed fiction, with a view to bring 
the apostle from the outset into closest union with the Twelve, would 
have had to make the very most of icropyoa: Ilétpov. — Kat dınyhoaro] not 
Paul, so Beza and others, as already Abdias* appears to have taken it, but 
Barnabas, which the construction requires, and which alone is in keeping 
with the business of the latter, to be the patron of Paul. — ör:] not 6, 7z.— 
év 76 Ödvön. r. ’Iyoov] the name—the confession and the proclamation of the 
name—of Jesus, as the Messiah, was the element, in which the bold speak- 
ing (£mahpnoıacaro) had free course.‘ 

Vv. 28-30. Mer aurov eiorop. x. Exmop.] See on i. 21. According to the 
reading eic 'Iepove., and after deletion of the following kai (see the critical 
remarks), eic ‘Iepovo. is to be attached to zappyco.: He found himself in 
familiar intercourse with them, while in Jerusalem he spoke frankly and freely 
in the name of the Lord Jesus. Accordingly eic "Iepovo. is to be taken as in 
knpoacew ete (Mark i. 39), Afyeı eig (John vill. 26), naprupeiv eig (Acts xxüi. 
11), and similar expressions, where eic amounts to the sense of coram. 
Comp. Matthiae, $ 578, 35; Ellendt, Zex. Soph. I. p. 534. With zAaAeı re 
x.r.A. (which is only to be separated from the preceding by a comma) there 
is annexed to the general eic ‘Iepovo. rappyo. a special portion thereof, in 
which case, instead of the participle, there is emphatically introduced the 
finite tense.°— rpöc rove "EAAnv.] with (against) the Greek-Jews, see on Vi. 
1. —éreyelpovv aitiv avedciv] does not exclude the appearance of Christ, 
xxii. 17, 18, as Zeller thinks, since it is, on the contrary, the positive ful- 
filment of the od mapad££ovraı x.t.A. negatively announced in chap. xxii. — 
£ar£oreıhav] they sent him away from them to Tarsus, after they had brought 
him down to Caesarea. On account of Gal. i. 27 it is to be assumed that the 
apostle journeyed from Caesarea ® to Tarsus, not by sea, but by land, along 
the Mediterranean coast through Syria; and not, with Calovius and 
Olshausen, that here Caesarea Philippi on the borders of Syria is to be 
understood as meant. The reader cannot here, any more than in viii. 40, 
find any occasion in the text to understand Kaicdpeca otherwise than as the 
celebrated capital ; it is more probable, too, that Paul avoided the closer 
vicinity of Damascus. — How natural it was to his heart, now that he was 
recognised by his older colleagues in Jerusalem but persecuted by the Jews, 
to bring the salvation in Christ, first of all, to the knowledge of his beloved 
native region! And doubtless the first churches of Cilicia owed their 
origin to his abode at that time in his native country. 


1 Schneckenburger, Baur, Zeller, Laurent, KUKAw wéexpe ’IAAvpıkod, Rom. xv. 19. Comp. 


comp. Neander, p. 165 ; Lekebusch, p. 283. Eph. vi. 20. 
2 iotopjoae Merpor, Gal. /.c. 5 Winer p. 533 (E. T. 717). 
3 Hist. ap. ii. 2. ® See on viii. 40. 


4 From this is dated the ao ‘IepovoadAyp x. 


VISITS JERUSALEM AND TARSUS. 193 

Ver. 31. Oöv] draws an inference from the whole history, vv. 3-30: in 
consequence of the conversion of the former chief enemy and his trans- 
formation into the zealous apostle. — The description of the happy state of 
the church contains two elements : (1) Jt had peace, rest from persecutions, 
and, as its accompaniment, the moral state: becoming edified—advaneing in 
Christian perfection, according to the habitual use of the word in the N. T. 
— and walking in the fear of the Lord, i.e. leading a God-fearing life, by 
which that edification exhibited itself in the moral conduct. (2) Jt was 
enlarged, increased in the number of its members,” by the exhortation * of the 
Holy Spirit, i.e. by the Holy Spirit through His awakening influence direct- 
ing the minds of men to give audience to the preaching of the gospel.‘ 
The meaning: comfort, consolation,® is at variance with the context, al- 
though still adopted by Baumgarten. — Observe, moreover, with the 
correct reading 7 wév obv ExkAnoia x.7.A. the aspect of unity, under which 
Luke, surveying the whole domain of Christendom, comprehends the churches 
which had been already formed, and were in course of formation. The 
external bond of this unity was the apostles; the internal, the Spirit; 
Christ the One Head; the forms of the union were not yet more fully 
developed than by the gradual institution of presbyters (xi. 30) and 
deacons. That the church was also in Galilee, was obvious of itself, 
though the name is not included in viii. 1; it was, indeed, the cradle of 
Christianity. 

Vv. 32-35. (r') This journey of visitation and the incidents related of 
Peter to the end of chap. x. occur, according to the order of the text, in 
the period of Paul’s abode in Cilicia after his departure from Jerusalem, 
ver. 30. Olshausen,’ in an entirely arbitrary manner, transfers them to 
the time of the Arabian sojourn, and considers the communication of the 
return to Jerusalem, at ix. 26 ff., as anticipated. — dıa ravrov] namely, rov 
ayiwy, as necessarily results from what follows.® — Aidda, in the O. T. Lod,’ 
a village resembling a town,'® not far from the Mediterranean, near Joppa 
(ver. 38), at a later period the important city of Diospolis, now the vil- 
lage of Ludd."' — Aivéac was, according to his Greek name,” perhaps a Hel- 
lenist ; whether he was a Christian, as Kuinoel thinks, because his conver- 
sion is not afterwards related, or not, in favour of which is the anything but 
characteristic designation ävfpwr6v twa, remains undetermined. — iarai oe] 
actually, at this moment. —’Inooöc 6 Xpıoröc] Jesus the Messiah. — orpacov 
ceavt@ | Erroneously Heumann, Kuinoel: ‘‘ Lectum, quem tibi hactenus alii 


1 Dative of manner, as in xxi. 21; Rom. 
xiii. 13 ; comp. on 2 Cor. xii. 18. 

2 As in vi. 1, 7, vii. 17, xii. 24; hence not: 
it was filled with, etc., Vulgate, Baumgarten, 
and others. 

3 As in iv. 86, xiii. 15, xv. 31 ; Phil. ii. 1. 

4 Comp. xvi. 14. 

5 Vulgate and others. 

© Gal. i. 22. Comp. xvi. 5. 

7 Comp. also Wieseler, p. 146. 

® Comp. Rom. xy. 28. 


21 Chron. ix. 12; Ezra ii. 33. 

10 Joseph. Antt. xx. 6,2; Bell. ii. 12. 6, iii. 
3. 5. 

11 See Lightfoot, ad Matth. p. 35 ff.; Rob- 
inson, III. 363 ff. ; von Raumer, p. 190 f. 

12? The name Aiveas (not to be identified 
with that of the Trojan Aiveias) is also found 
in Thue. iv. 119. 1; Xen. Anab. iv. 7. 13, Zell. 
vii. 3.1; Pind. Ol. vi.149. Yet Aiveas instead 
of Aiveias is found in a fragment of Sophocles 
(342 D) for the sake of the verse. 


194 CHAP. IX., 31-43. 

straverunt, in posterum tute tibi ipse sterne.’’ The imperative aorist 
denotes the immediate fulfilment ;1 hence: make thy bed, on the spot, for 
thyself ; perform immediately, in token of thy cure, the same work which 
hitherto others have had to do for thee in token of thine infirmity. — orpév- 
vot, used also in classical writers absolutely, without euvac or the like.?— 
Saron, })W*] a very fruitful ;* plain along the Mediterranean at Joppa, ex- 
tending to Caesarea.° — oirivec éxéotp. éxi 7. kip. | The aorist does not stand for 
the pluperfect, so that the sense would be: all Christians ;° but: and there 
saw him, after his cure, all the inhabitants of Lydda and Saron, they who 
(quippe qui), in consequence of this practical proof of the Messiahship of 
Jesus, turned to the Lord. The numerous conversions, which occurred in 
consequence of the miraculous cure, are in a popular hyperbolical manner 
represented by ravrec oi x.r.A. as a conversion of the population as a whole.— 
Since Peter did not first inquire as to the faith of the sick man, he must 
have known the man's confidence in the miraculous power commtnicated 
to him as the ambassador and announcer of the Messiah (ver. 34), or have 
read it from his looks, as in iii. 4. Chrysostom and Oecumenius adduce 
other reasons. 

Ver. 36. ’Iér77, 15°, now Jaffa, an old, strong, and important commer- 
cial city on the Mediterranean, directly south of the plain of Sharon, at 
this time,after the deposition of Archelaus, belonging to the province of 
Syria.” — yatyrpia| whether virgin, widow, or wife, is undetermined.* On 
this late Greek word, only here in the N. T., see Wetstein. — Taßıda, 


oes 


Aramaic 8720, which corresponds to the Hebrew '2% (DB), ae. dopkäc,” 


a gazelle.'’ It appears as a female name also in Greek writers ; and the 
bestowal of this name is explained from the gracefulness of the animal, 
just as the old Oriental love-songs adorn their descriptions of female loveli- 
ness by comparison with gazelles. —xai &denu.]| kai: and in particular. 
Comp. ver. 41. That Tabitha was a deaconess,” is not implied in the text; 
there were probably not yet any such oflice-bearers at that time. 

Vv. 37, 38. Concerning the general ancient custom of washing the dead, 
see Dougtaei '? and Wetstein ; also Hermann.'*— év ürepow] The articie, 
which Lachmann and Bornemann have, after A © E, was not necessary, 
as it was well known that there was only one upper room (i. 13) in the 
house, and thus no mistake could occur. Nor is anything known as to its 


ı Elmsl. ad Sopr. Aj. 1180; Kühner, II. 
p. 80. 

2 Hom. Od. xix. 598; Plut. Artax. 22. 

3 Notto be accented Sapova,with Lachmann, 
but Sapwva. See Bornemann in loc. Comp. 
Lobeck, Paralip. p. 555. 

4 Jerome, ad Jes. xxxiii. 19. 

5 See Lightfoot, ad Matth. p. 38 f.; Arnold 
in Herzog’s Encykl. XI. p. 10. 

® Kuinoel. 

7 See Tobler, Topogr. v. Jerus. II. p. 576 ff. ; 
Ruetschi in Herzog’s Encykl. VII. p. 4 f. 

® But probably a widow. To this points 


magat ai xnpaı of ver. 39; all the widows of 
the church, who lamented their dead com- 
panion. 

» Xen. Anab.i. 5.2; Eur. Bacch. 698; Ael. 
H. A. xiv. 14. 

10 Bochart, Hieroz. I. p. 924 ff., II. p. 304; 
Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 848. 

11 Luc. Meretr. D. 9, Meleag. 61 f., in Joseph 
Bell. iv. 3.5, and the Rabbins (Lightfoot, ad. 
Matth. p. 39). 

12 Thiersch, Sepp. 

13 Anal. II. p. 77 ff. 

14 Privatalterth. § 39. 5. 


PETER CURES AENEAS AND RAISES DORCAS. 195 


having usually served as the chamber for the dead ; perhaps the room for 
privacy and prayer was chosen in this particular instance, because they 
from the very first thought to obtain the presence and agency of Peter. — 
wh oxrhone k.r.A.) Comp. Num, xxii. 16. ‘‘ Fides non tollit civilitatem ver- 
borum,’’ Bengel. On the classical öxveiv, only here in the N. T., see 
Ruhnk.,' Jacobs.” Thou mayest not hesitate to come to us. On dıeAf., 
comp. Luke ii. 15. 

Ver. 39. The widows, the recipients of the ayafav épy. x. EAenuoo., Ver. 
36, exhibit to Peter the under and upper garments, which they wore® as 
gifts of the deceased, who herself, according to the old custom among 
women, had made them,—the eloquent utterance of just and deep sorrow, 
and of warm desire that the apostolic power might here become savingly 
operative; but, according to Zeller, a display calculated for effect. — 
7, Aopkäc] The proper name expressed in Greek is, as the most attractive for 
non-Jewish readers, and perhaps also as being used along with the Hebrew 
name in the city itself, here repeated, and is therefore not, with Wassen- 
berg, to be suspected. 

Vv. 40-43. The putting out* of all present took place in order to pre- 
serve the earnestness of the prayer and its result from every disturbing 
influence. — 7d cdua] the dead body. See on Luke xvii. 87. On avexdfioe, 
comp. Luke vii. 15. — The explanation of the fact as an awakening from 
apparent death® is exegetically at decided variance with ver. 37, but is also 
to be rejected historically, as the revival of the actually dead Tabitha has 
its historical precedents in the raisings of the dead by Jesus.° Ewald’s 
view also amounts ultimately to an apparent death (p. 245), placing the 
revival at that boundary-line, ‘‘ where there may scarcely be still the last 
spark of lifein a man.’’ Baur, in accordance with his foregone conclusions, 
denies all historical character to the miracles at Lydda and Joppa, holding 
that ‘they are narratives of evangelical miracles transferred to Peter ;7 and 
that the very name Taßıda is probably derived simply from the rarıda koöuı, 
Mark v. 40, for Taßıda properly (?) denotes nothing but maiden. — kai] and 
in particular. — Ver. 42. öri] direction of the faith, as in xi. 17, xvi. 31, 
xxii. 19; Rom. iv. 24. — Ver. 43. ßvposi] although the trade of a tanner, 
on account of its being occupied with dead animals, was esteemed unclean ;? 
which Peter now disregarded. — The word vpceic, in Artemidorus and 
others, has also passed into the language of the Talmud (D713). The more 
classical term is Bupcodéwne.® 


1 Ad Tim. p. 190. 5 See particularly Eck. Versuch d. Wunder- 


2 Ad Anthol. II. p. 894. 

3 Observe the middle &rıdeırv. (only here in 
the N. T.), they ewhibited on themselves. There 
lay a certain se/f-consciousness, yea, a grateful 
ostentation, in their being able to show the 
pledges of her beneficence. See on the dis- 
tinction between the active and middle of 
emdecxy., Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. in. 1. 21. 
Comp. also Ast, Lew. Plat. I. p. 772. 

4 Comp. Matt. ix. 25; Mark v. 40; Luke 
viii. 54. 


gesch. d. N. T. aus natürl. Urs. 2. erklären, p. 
248 ff. 

® Hence it is just as unnecessary as ıt 18 
arbitrary to assume, with Lange, apost. Zeitalt. 
II. p. 129, that Tabitha had for a considerable 
time stood ın spiritual rapport with Peter, and 
that this was the vehicle of the reviving agency. 

7 Comp. also Zeller, p. 177 f. 

8 Wetstein and Schoettgen. 

* Plat. Conv. p. 221 E; Aristoph. Plut. 166. 


* 196 CHAP. IX.—NOTES. 


Notes BY AMERICAN EDITOR, 


(a!) Saul. V. 1. 


The first section of the ninth chapter furnishes a record of an event in the 
early history of the church of Christ, second in interest and importance only to 
the wonders of the day of Pentecost—the sudden, miraculous conversion of 
Saul of Tarsus. He was a man of rare endowments, varied attainments, great 
influence, and indomitable energy ; and he became the mightiest champion, 
and most zealous and successful missionary of the faith he had so fiercely un- 
dertaken to overthrow. More than any, or than all of the apostles, he has 
impressed his spirit and personality on evangelical Christianity ; and thus he 
has wielded a more potent influence in the world than any man of his own, or 
of any other age, unless, indeed, we except that mighty man of God, the great 
emancipator and lawgiver of Israel. Of this marked event we have three dis- 
tinct accounts in the Acts—one in the narrative of Luke, two in speeches de- 
livered by Paul himself—and numerous allusions in his epistles. These ac- 
counts agree in all principal points, and only differ in subordinate details. 
The variety furnishes the highest evidence of the credibility of the history. 
The separate accounts mutually supplement each other, and give completeness 
to the record. Farrar says: “It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of 
Paul’s conversion as one of the evidences of Christianity. That the same man 
who just before was persecuting Christianity with the most violent hatred 
should come, all at once, to believe in him whose followers he had been seek- 
ing to destroy, and that in this faith he should become a ‘new creature — 
what is this but a victory which Christianity owed to nothing but the spell of 
its own inherent power? Of all who have been converted to the faith of 
Christ, there is not one in whose case the Christian principle broke so imme- 
diately through everything opposed to it, and asserted so absolutely its tri- 
umphant superiority. Henceforth to Paul Christianity was summed up in the 
one word, Christ.’’ 


(n!) Damascus. V. 2. 


The name of Damascus occurs as early as the time of Abraham, and is, there- 
fore, probably the oldest city in the world. It is situated about one hundred 
and forty miles north-east of Jerusalem, and was, at the time of Paul’s visit, 
the capital of Syria. Many Jews resided there, and it is probable a number of 
them were present on the day of Pentecost, so that a church was early planted 
init. The city has had a romantic and diversified history. It played an im- 
portant part in the Wars of the Crusades, and it is still one of the largest cities 
in the Kast, containing 150,000 inhabitants. Beautiful for situation as it is 
important in position, it has been described as ‘‘ the eye of the East,” or as “a 
handful of pearls in its goblet of emeralds.”’ 


(0!) A light from heaven. V. 3. 


Our author strongly repudiates and refutes the opinions of those who at- 
tempt to account for the occurrence on natural principles—as that Paul was in 
greatly perturbed state of mind, in reference to all he had heard about Jesus, 


NOTES. 197 


and had witnessed concerning Stephen ; that, while journeying in this unset- 
tled and troubled state, he encountered a violent thunder-storm, and was 
blinded by a vivid flash of lightning ; that his excited imagination heard a 
voice in the thunder, and saw a celestial form in the lightning. He says the 
light was rather the heavenly radiance, with which the exalted Christ, appearing 
in his glory, is surrounded. The Risen One himself was in the light which ap- 
peared and converted Saul. This, doubtless, is the meaning of the narrative. 
Paul was free from fanaticism, and under no hallucination, and was little 
likely to confound a merely natural phenomenon with a heavenly revelation. 
To him the sight and the sound alike were impressively and permanently 
real, “And about that which he saw and heard he never wavered. It was 
the secret of his inmost being ; it was the most unalterable conviction of his 
soul; it was the very crisis and most intense moment of his life. Others 
might hint at explanations or whisper doubt : Saul knew. From that moment 
Saul was converted. A change total, utter, final had passed over him. And 
the means of this mighty change all lay in this one fact—at that awful moment 
he had seen the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Farrar.) 


(?!) Stood speechless. V. 7. 


The first apparent discrepancy here relates to the posture of Paul’s compan- 
ions. Luke says they stood ; Paul says they all fell to the ground (xxvi. 14). 
“ This verb often means to stand, not as opposed to other attitudes, but to be 
fixed and stationary, as opposed to the idea of motion. In this sense the pas- 
sage is entirely consistent with xxvi. 14, where it is said that when they heard 
the voice they allfelltothe ground. Plainly it was not Luke’s object to say that 
they stood erect in distinction from kneeling, lying prostrate, and the like ; 
but that, overpowered by what they saw and heard, they were fixed to the spot ; 
they were unable for a time to speak or move.” (Hackett.) 

The second apparent discrepancy relates to the voice from heaven. Luke says 
Paul’s companions heard it ; Paul says (xxii. 9), “They heard not the voice of 
him that spake to me.” The verb rendered to hear is often used in the sense 
of to understand—to hear with the understanding. The meaning is that the 
words of our Lord were heard indeed both by Paul and his companions, but 
were understood only by the former. ‘‘dxovw, like the corresponding word in 
other languages, means not only to hear, but to hear so as to understand.” The 
expression used by Luke differs from that employed by Paul—Luke uses owvj5 ; 
Paul, dovYv. Jacobson and others think that this implies a difference in the 
meaning, attributing to the genitive case a partitive sense, and so understand- 
ing Luke to say the companions heard something of the voice, but indistinctly. 
Hackett and Alford both disapprove of this distinction. 


(Q') Many days. YV,. 23. 


During the time included by this phrase, the journey into Arabia, of which 
Paul speaks in his epistle to the Galatians, but of which Luke makes no men- 
tion, must have been made. There is an indefiniteness about the time, and 
where and how it was spent, which leaves room for various conjectures. “The 
following,” says Gloag, ‘‘ appears to have been the series of events: Paul, im- 
mediately after his conversion, spent a few days with the disciples at Damas- 


195 CHAP.TX- NOLES: 


cus, preaching Christ in the synagogues of the Jews (verses 19-22). Soon af- 
terward, urged by an internal impulse, he went to Arabia, where he spent 
two or three years in retirement, preparıng himself for his great mission (Gal. 
i. 15-17). Then he returned to Damascus, and spent some time longer there 
preaching the gospel (ver. 23). Afterward, in consequence of a plot of the 
Jews against his life, he effected his escape and betook himself to Jerusalem 
(verses 24, 25). Itisprobable that the greater part of the three years was spent 
not in Damascus, but in Arabia ; for it is to his residence in Arabia that Paul 
himself gives the greater prominence. Damascus is only incidentally men- 
tioned by him. Thisalso best accounts for the cold reception which he re- 
ceived from the disciples in Jerusalem.’’ The fact that Luke makes no men- 
tion of the journey to Arabia may be accounted for by this consideration, that 
the Acts is not a biography of Paul in his private relations or experiences, but 
a record of his public labors for the extension and upbuilding of the church. 
* Paul, in Arabia, was not an evangelist, but a student of theology ; not a dis- 
penser, but a receiver of revelations. He who formerly at Jerusalem sat at the 
feet of Gamaliel, in Arabia sat as a student at the feet of Jesus; and the Acts 
records not his studies but his labors ; it relates public events which are his, 
tory, not private events which are biography.’’ (Gloag.) 


(zn!) Peter and Paul—Lydda and Joppa, V. 32. 


On the return of Paul from Damascus to Jerusalem he was introduced to the 
brethren there by Barnabas. There first Peter and Paul met and took counsel 
together. Kindred in spirit, though differing much in social culture and men- 
tal training, the high-born, philosophic pupil of Gamaliel and the humble il- 
literate boatman of Galilee formed, even during the brief intercourse of two 
weeks, an ardent, life-long friendship. Little did either of them at the time 
imagine the grandeur of the work in which they were engaged, or the great 
things they both were to do and to suffer forthe sake of Him they sought to 
serve and honor. Still less did they suppose that their humble names would 
be inscribed in the heraldry of deathless fame, while the great men of their 
day, princes, philosophers, and priests, would be remembered chiefly because 
of their relation to them and their work. Scarcely had the names of Caligula, 
and Gamaliel, and Annas been known to-day but for their connection with 
these two humble great men and their mission. After a few days of wonderful 
and intimate fellowship, and mutual explanations of personal experience, they 
part—Paul to go to his native city, and Peter to visit the church in the vicinity 
of Jerusalem. Hitherto the attention of the apostles had mainly been given to 
the church in the capital ; now the most restless and ardent of their number 
goes forth on a tour of pastoral and evangelistic labor. In his journeyings he 
came to Lydda, the ancient Lud, situated in the delightful pastoral plain of 
Sharon, famous for its beauty, flowers, and fruitfulness. The old loveliness of 
the plain remains, but it is now a solitude ; and a soil rich enough to supply 
all Palestine with food, under the desolating rule of the Ottoman domination, 
is untilled and unproductive. Lydda is the reputed birthplace of St. George, 
whose name is associated with the mythical story of the dragon, and who is 
the so-called patron saint of England. Peter came to the saints there. It is 
worthy of note that there are four names by which the followers of Jesus were 
designated before they were called Christians—the name by which they are now 


NOTES. 199 


universally distinguished: disciples, i. 15; believers, ii. 44 ; saints, ix. 13; 
brethren, ix, 30. Here, and also at Joppa, now Jaffa, a seaport on the Mediter- 
ranean, and within six miles of Lydda, the apostle wrought two striking mira- 
cles, in restoring the confirmed paralytic Eneas to perfect strength, and in rais- 
ing the deceased Dorcas to life. To the one he said: ‘ Eneas, Jesus Christ 
maketh thee whole ;” and to the other, after prayer: ‘‘ Tabitha, arise.’’ At- 
tempts have been made to explain away these miracles, but they have totally 
failed. The impression made on all who witnessed them was that it was the 
mighty power of God, and in consequence ‘‘many believed in the Lord.” Dr. 
W. M. Taylor says: ‘‘A wonder, and yet not a wonder. A wonder when we 
look at Peter, the human instrument ; but no wonder at all when we’ think of 
Jesus Christ, the Divine Agent. It is Divine power that works in daily order, 
and Divine choice can alter that order in an individual instance. Hence let 
but the Deity of Jesus Christ be granted, and the whole matter is explained.’’ 


200 CRITICAL REMARKS. 


CHAPTER X. 


Ver. 1. After rıs, Elz. Scholz have 7v, which Lachm. Tisch. and Born. have 
deleted. It is wanting in ABCEGN, min., in the vss. and Theophyl. ; it 
was inserted (after ix. 36), because the continuous construction of vy. 1-3 was 
mistaken. Almost according to the same testimony the usual ré, ver. 2, after 
moıöv is condemned as an insertion. — Ver. 3. dcei] Lachm. and Born. read 
Goel mepi,. after A BC EN, min. Dam. Theophyl. 2. Rightly; the wepi after 
Goei was passed over as superfluous. — Ver. 5. After Ziuwva read, with Lachm. 
Tisch. Born., rıva, according to A BC, min. Copt. Arm. Syr. p. (in the margin) 
Vulg. The indefinite rıva appeared not suited to the dignity of the prince of 
the apostles, and was therefore omitted. — After ver. 6, Elz. (following Erasm.) 
has obroS AaAnoeı oor, Ti oe dei roıeiv, Which, according to decisive testimony, is 
to be rejected as an interpolation from ix. 6, x. 32. The addition, which some 
other witnesses have instead of it: 65 AaAyoeı fnuara mpös oe, Ev oS owAnon od 
Kal mäs 6 olköS cov, is from xi. 14. — Ver. 7. auro] Elz. has tw KopvnAio, against 
decisive testimony. On similar evidence airod after oixer. (Elz. Scholz) is 
deleted. — Ver. 10. aitwv] So Lachm. Born. Tisch. instead of the usual éxeivor, 
which has far preponderant evidence against it, and was intended to remedy 
the indefiniteness of the aur@v. —érérecev] AB C N, min. Copt. Or. have 
&y£vero, which Griesb. approved, and Lachm. Tisch. Born. have adopted, and 
that rightly, as it is preponderantly attested, and was easily replaced by the 
more definite érémecev (Clem. : éxecev) as its gloss. — Ver. 11. After karaßaivov, 
Elz. has &m’ aöröv, which is wanting in A B C** EN, min. vss. Or. Defended, 
indeed, by Rinck (as having been omitted in conformity to xi. 5) ; but the very 
notice kai 7A9ev ayp:S Euov, xi. 5, has here produced the addition éz’ airév as a 
more precise definition. — dedeuévov kai] is wanting in A B C** EN, min, Arm. 
Aeth. Vulg. Or. Cyr. Theodoret. Deleted by Lachm. But see xi. 5.— Ver. 12. 
775 y7S] is wanting in too few witnesses to be regarded as spurious. But 
Lachm. and Tisch. have it after &prera, according to A B C E 8, min. vss, and 
Fathers. Rightly ; see xi. 6, from which passage also the usual kai ra Onpia 
before kai ra £&prera is interpolated. ra before äprerd and rerewä is, with 
Lachm. and Tisch., to be deleted. — Ver. 16. e145] So Lachm. and Tisch. 
after ABCEN, min. Copt. Aeth. Vulg. But Elz. Scholz have rad, which is 
introduced from xi. 10, although defended by Born. (who places it after aveA.) 
on account of its appearing superfluous. —- Ver. 17. «ai idod] Lachm. reads idov, 
after A B®, min. ; but «ai was unnecessary, and might appear disturbing. — 
Ver. 19. dvevOuuovuévov] Elz. has év$uu. against decisive evidence. Neglect of 
the double compound, elsewhere not occurring in the N. T. — avdpes] Elz: 
Lachm. Scholz. add to this rpeis, which is wanting in D G H min. vss. and 
Fathers. An addition, after ver. 7, xi. 11 ; instead of which B has dvo (ver. 7), 
which Buttmann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p. 357, unsatisfactorily defends by 
the artificial assumption—not confirmed by the expression in ver. 8—that the 
soldier was only taken with him as escort and attendant. — Ver. 20. Instead 


CRITICAL REMARKS, 201 


of 671, Elz. has diörı, against decisive evidence. — Ver. 21. After dvdpas, Elz. 
has rovs amectaduévovs and tod Kopynriov mpos airév, against ABC DEG 8, 
min. and most vss. Chrys. An addition, because ver. 21 commences a church- 
lesson.— Ver. 23. avacrds] is wanting in Elz., but is just as certainly protected 
by decisive testimony, and by its being apparently superfluous, as o [lé¢rpos, 
which in Elz. stands before é¢&7/9e, is condemned by A BC D NS, min. and sey- 
eral vss. as the subject written on the margin. — Ver. 25. rod eioeAdeiv] Elz. has 
merely eiceißeiv. But rod is found in A B C EG 8, min. Chrys. Bas. Theophyl. 
See the exegetical remarks. — Born. reads ver. 25 thus: mpooeyyigovros dé Tob 
Tlétpov eis rv Kacdperav, zpodpauav eis tav dovAwv dıeoagmoev mapayeyovévat 
abrév: 6 d& KopvnjAuos Exmndncas Kal ovvavtyoas ait mecdv TpoS TOUS nödas TpoCE- 
kuvnoev abrov, only after D, Syr. p. (on the margin) ; an apocryphal attempt at 
depicting the scene, and how much of a foil to the simple narrative in the 
text !— Ver. 30. After évarnv, Elz. has öpav, which, according to preponderant 
testimony, is to be rejected as a supplementary addition. Lachm. has also 
deleted vycretwr kai, after some important codd. (including N) and several vss. 
But the omission is explained by there being no mention of fasting in ver. 3. 
— Ver. 32. 65 mapayevöu. Aaknoeı cor] is wanting in Lachm., after AB S, min. 
Copt. Aeth. Vulg. But the omission took place in accordance with ver. 6, — 
Ver. 33. Instead of örö, read, with Lachm. Tisch. Born. according to prepon- 
derating evidence, and (E apa). — Instead of Ocoi, Lachm. and Tisch. have 
kvpiov, according to predominant attestation ; Oeod is a mechanical repetition 
from the preceding, in which the reading &vor. cov. (Born.) is, on account of 
too weak attestation, to be rejected. — Ver. 36. 6v] is wanting in A BN**, lot. 
Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Vulg. Ath. Deleted by Lachm. ; but the omission very 
naturally suggested itself, in order to simplify the construction. — Ver. 37. 
apgapevov] AC DEH 8, min. have apfauevos, which Lachm. has on the mar- 
gin. AD Vulg. Cant. Ir. add yap, which Lachm. puts in brackets. Born. has 
apfauevos yap. But apfduevov is necessary, according to the sense, — Ver. 39. 
After 7ueis, Elz. has écuev, against decisive testimony. A supplementary addi- 
tion. — Ver. 42. aizés] BC D E G, min. Syr. utr, Copt. Sahid. have otros. 
Recommended by Griesb, and adopted by Lach. and Born, An erroneous cor- 
rection. See the exegetical remarks, — Ver. 48. airovs] avrois is neither strong- 
ly enough attested (A 8), nor in accordance with the sense. — Tov kvpiov) A B 
EN, min. vss. Fathers have ’Inoodö Xpioctod. So Lachm. An alteration, in or- 
der to denote the specific character of the baptism more definitely. Hence 
some codd, and vss. have both together, So Born. after D. 


(s'). Vv. 1, 2. Kacapeia] See on viii. 40.—The centurion was of the Italian + 
cohort, which, stationed at Caesarea, consisted of Italians, not of natives of 
the country, like many other Roman troops in Syria. .Such a Roman aux- 
iliary corps was appropriately stationed at the place where the procurator 
had his residence, for the maintenance of tranquillity.! — evoeßnc x. GoBoimevog 
r. Ocdv] pious and fearing God (t'). The latter is the more precise definition 
of the more general euoeßjc. Cornelius was a Gentile, who, discontented 
with polytheism, had turned his higher interest towards Judaism, and 


1 See Schwarz, de cohorte Italica et Augusta, Beiträge z. Würdig. d. Evangelien, 1869, p. 
Altorf. 1720 ; Wieseler, Chronol. p. 145, and 20 f. 


202 CHAP. X., 2-4. 


satisfied a deeper pious want in the earnest private worship of Jehovah 
along with all his family. Judaism, as Stoicism and the like in the case of 
others, was for him the philosophical-religious school, to which he, although 
without being a proselyte, addicted himself in his heart and devotional life. 
Hence his beneficence (ver. 2) and his general esteem among the Jews (ver. 
22.) Comp. the centurion of Capernaum, Luke vii. Others consider him, with 
Mede, Grotius, Fecht,' Deyling, Hammond, Wolf, Ernesti, Ziegler, Paulus, 
Olshausen, Neander, Lechler, and Ritschl, as a proselyte of the gate” But 
this is at variance with vv. 28, 34, 35, xi. 1, 18, xv. 7, where he is simply 
put into the class of the Gentiles,—a circumstance which cannot be referred 
merely to the want of circumcision, as the proselytes of the gate also be- 
longed to the communion of the theocracy, and had ceased to be non-Jews 
like absolute foreigners.* And all the great importance which this event 
has in a connected view of the Book of Acts, has as its basis the very cir- 
cumstance that Cornelius was a Gentile. Least of all can his proselytism 
be proved from the expression doßouuevoc röv Gedy itself, as the general literal 
meaning of this expression can only be made by the context‘ to apply to the 
worship of proselytes ; but here we are required by ver. 35 to adhere to 
that general literal meaning without this particular reference. It is to be 
considered, moreover, that had Cornelius been a proselyte of the gate, it 
would have, according to xv. 7, to be assumed that hitherto no such prose- 
lyte at all had been converted to Christianity, which, even apart from the 
conversion of the Ethiopian, chap. viii., is—considering the many thousand 
converts of which the church already consisted—incredible, particularly as 
often very many were admitted simultaneously,’ and as certainly the more 
unprejudiccd proselytes were precisely the most inclined to join the new 
theocracy.—Accordingly the great step which the new church makes in its 
development at chap. x. consists in this, that by divine influence the jirst 
Gentile, who did not yet belong to the Jewish theocratic state, becomes a 
Christian, and that directly, without having first made the transition in any 
way through Mosaism. The extraordinary importance of this epoch-making 
event stands in proportion to the accumulated miraculous character of the 
proceedings. The view, which by psychological and other assumptions 
and combinations assigns to it along with the miraculous character also a 
natural instrumentality,° leads to deviations from the narrative, and to 
violences which are absolutely rejected by the text.” The view which re- 
jects the historical reality of the narrative, and refers it toa set purpose in 
the author,® seeks its chief confirmation in the difficulties which the direct 
admission of the Gentiles had for long still to encounter, in what is narrated 
in chap. xv., and in the conduct of Peter at Antioch.’ But, on the other 


1 De pietate Cornelii, Rostoch. 1701. 5 II. 41, iv. 4. 

2 Selden, de jure nat. 1i. 8 (whom de Wette 6 Neander, p. 115 f. {and Baumgarten. 
follows), has doubted, but without sufficient 7 See, on the other hand, Zeller, p. 179 ff., 
reason, the existence of VW 7), in the 8 Baur, Zeller. 
proper sense, after the Captivity. ® Gal. ii. 11 ff. Comp. also Schwegler, nach- 

3 See Ewald, Alterth. p. 313 ; Keil, Archäol. apostol. Zeitalt. I. p. 127 ff. ; Gfrörer, heil. 
I. p. 317. Sage, I. p. 415; Holtzmann, Judenth. u. 


4 As xiii. 16, 26. Christenth. p. 679 f. 


VISION OF CORNELIUS, 203 


hand, it is to be observed, that not even miracles are able at once to remove 
in the multitude deeply rooted national prejudices, and to dispense with 
the gradual progress of psychological development requisite for this end, 
comp. the miracles of Jesus Himself, and the miracles performed on him ; 
that further, in point of fact the difficulties in the way of the penetration 
of Christianity to the Gentiles were exceedingly great ;' and that Peter's 
conduct at Antioch, with a character so accessible to the impressions of the 
moment, comp. the denial, is psychologically intelligible as a temporary 
obscuration of his better conviction once received by way of revelation, at 
variance with his constant conduct on other occasions,” and therefore by no 
means necessitates the presupposition that the extraordinary divine disclo- 
sure and guidance, which our passage narrates, are unhistorical. Indeed, 
the reproach which Paul makes to Peter at Antioch, presupposes the agree- 
ment in principle between them in respect to the question of the Gentiles ; 
for Paul designates the conduct of Peter as ürökpıoıs, Gal. ii. 13. 

Ver. 3. Eidev is the verb belonging to drjp .. . KopvnA., ver. 1, and 
éxatovt. . . . Ötaravröc is in apposition to Kopv7%. — The intimation made to 
Cornelius is a vision in a waking condition, caused by God during the hour 
of prayer, which was sacred to the centurion on account of his high respect 
for Judaism, {.e. a manifestation of God made so as to be clearly perceptible 
to the inner sense of the pious man, conveyed by the medium of a clear 
(gavep@c) angelic appearance in vision, which Cornelius himself, ver. 30, 
describes more precisely in its distinctly seen form, just as it at once on its 
occurrence made the corresponding impression upon him; hence ver. 4 : 
EugoBoc yevöu. and ri &orı, küpıe;° Eichhorn rationalized the narrative to the 
effect that Cornelius, full of longing to become acquainted with the distin- 
guished Peter now so near him, learned the place of his abode from a 
citizen of Joppa at Caesarea, and then during prayer felt a peculiar eleva- 
tion of mind, by which, as if by an angel, his purpose of making Peter’s 
acquaintance was confirmed. This is opposed to the whole representation ; 
with which also Ewald’s similar view fails to accord, that Cornelius, un- 
certain whether or not he should wish a closer acquaintance with Peter, 
had, ‘‘ as if irradiated by a heavenly certainty and directed by an angelic 
voice,’’ firmly resolved to invite the apostle at once to visit him. — édcei zepi 
op. var. (see the critical remarks) : as it were about the ninth hour. Circum- 
stantiality of expression.* 

Ver. 4, Eic uvnudowvov Evo. t. Ocot| 18 to be taken together, and denotes 
the aim or the destination of avéBycav :® to be a mark, i.e. a token of re- 
membrance, before God, so that they give occasion to God to think on thee. 
Comp. ver. 31. The sense of the whole figurative expression is: ‘‘ Thy 
prayers and thine alms have found consideration with God; He will fulfil 
the former’ and reward the later.”’ See ver. 31. — iv&ßnoav is strictly 


ee Ewald, p. 250 ff, ; Ritschl, alfkath. K. 6 Assuredly from the heart of the devout 
2 ass on Sr x 2 [p. 138 ff. Gentile there had arisen for the most part 
; neces URE REIN. 5 prayers for higher illumination and sanctifica- 
3 ee Bornemann in loc. tion of the inner life; probably also, seeing 

Comp. Matt. xxvi, 13. that Christianity had already attracted so 


204 CHAP. X., 5-16. 


4 


suited only to ai rpocevyai, which, according to the figurative embodiment 
of the idea of granting prayer, ascend from the heart and mouth of man 
to God ;! but it is by a zeugma referred also to the alms, which have excited 
the attention of God, to requite them by leading the pious man to Christ. 
The opinion’ that avé3. is based on the Jewish notion ® that prayers are 
carried by the angels to the throne of God, is as arbitrarily imported into 
the text as is the view * that eic wvyudcvvoy signifies instar sacrificii,® because 
forsooth, the LXX. express V13I8 by wvnuöovvov.* In all these passages the 
sense of a memorial-offering is necessarily determined by the context, which 
is not the case here with the simple avé3yoav. — On the relation of the good 
works of Cornelius to his faith, Gregory the Great’ already correctly re- 
marks that he did not arrive at faith by his works, but at the works by his 
faith. The faith, however cordial and vivid it was, was in his case up till 
now the Old Testament faith in the promised Messiah, but was destined, 
amidst this visitation of divine grace, to complete itself into the New Testa- 
ment faith in Jesus as the Messiah who had appeared. Thus was his way of 
salvation the same as that of the chamberlain, chap. viii. Comp. also 
Luther’s gloss on ver. 1. 

Vv. 5-7. The tanner, on account of his trade, dwelt by the [Mediterra- 
nean] sea, and probably apart from the city, to which his house belonged. 
‘*Cadavera et sepulcra separant et coriarium quinquaginta cubitos a 
eivitate.””— The rıva is added to Ziuwva (see the critical remarks) from the 
standpoint of Cornelius, as to him Peter was one unknown. — eice37] the 
soldier, one of the men of the cohort specially attached and devoted to 
Cornelius (röv zpockapr. auro), had the same religious turn of mind as his 
master, ver. 2.° 

Vv. 9, 10. On the following day, for Joppa was thirty miles from 
Caesarea, shortly before the arrival of the messengers of Cornelius at Peter’s 
house, the latter was, by means of a vision effected by divine agency in the 
state of ecstasy, prepared for the unhesitating acceptance of the summons 
of the Gentile ; while the feeling of hunger, with which Peter passed into 
the trance, served the divine revelation as the medium of its special form. 
— ini ro dua] for the flat 700fs'° were used by the Hebrews for religious 
exercises, prayers, and meditations.!! Incorrectly Jerome, Luther, Pricaeus, 
Erasmus, Heinrichs, hold that the izepsov is meant. At variance with N. 
T. usage ; even the Homeric déua (hall) was something different ;'” and why 
should Lnke not have employed the usual formal word izeowov ?"? Moreover, 


much attention in that region, prayers for in- 
formation regarding this phenomenon bearing 
so closely on the religious interests of the 
man. Perhaps the thought of becoming a 
Christian was at that very time the highest 
concern of his heart, in which case only the 
final decision was yet wanting. 

ı Comp. Gen. xviii. 2; Ex. ii. 23 ; Macc. v. 31. 

2 Wolf, Bengel, Eichhorn, and others. 

3 Tob. xii. 12, 15; Rev. viil. 4. 

4 Grotius, Heinrichs, and others. 

5 Comp. on the idea, Ps. clxi. 2. 


6 Ley. ii. 2, 9, 16, v. 12, vi. 15; Num. v. 26; 
comp. Ecclus. xxxü. 7, xxxviil. 11, xlv. 16. 

7 In Ez. Hom. 19. 

8 Surenh. Mischn. xi. 9. Comp. Artemid. i. 
53. See Walch, de Simone coriario, Jen. 1757. 

® On mpockapr., comp. Vill. 13 ; Dem. 1386. 6: 
Separawas tas Neaipa ToTe mpookapTepovoas, 
Folyb. xxiv. 5. 3. 

10 Comp. Luke y. 19, xii. 3, xvii. 31. 

11 Winer, Realw. s.v. Dach. 

12 See Herm. Privatalterth. § 19. 5. 

i3!j, 13, 14, ix. 37, 39, xx. 8. 


VISION OF PETER. 205 
the subsequent appearance is most in keeping with an abode in the open air. 
—ixrnv| See on iii. 1. mpöoremwoc, hungry, is not elsewhere preserved ; the 
Greeks say revvaiéoc. — jfede yeboacta| he had the desire to eat!—and in this 
desire, whilst the people of the house (airév) were preparing food, 
mapaokevalövruv,” the éxaracre came upon him (£y£vero, see the critical remarks), 
by which is denoted the involuntary setting in of this state. * 
itself is the waking but not spontaneous state, in which a man, transported out 
of the lower consciousness (2 Cor. xii. 2, 3) and freed from the limits of sensuous 
restriction as well as of discursive thought, apprehends with his higher pneumatie 


The &korasıc 


receptivity divinely presented revelations, whether these reach the inner sense 
through visions or otherwise * (U'). 

Vy. 11-13. Observe the vividly introduced historical present Pewpei. — 
röocapaıv apyaic deden.] attached with four ends, namely, to the edges of the 
opening which had taken place in heaven. Chap. xi. 5 requires this ex- 
planation, not the uswal one: ‘bound together at the four corners.’’ Nor 
does the text mention anything of ropes, bound to which it was let down. 
The visionary appearance has something marvellous even in the way of its 
occurrence. We are to imagine the vessel—whose four corners, moreover, 
are without warrant explained by Augustine, Wetstein, Bengel, Lange, 
and others as pointing to the four quarters of the world—looking like a 
colossal four-cornered linen-cloth (d(év7), letting itself down, while the 
corners attached to heaven support the whole. On apyai, extremitates, see 
Jacobs.° — ravra ra rerparoda] The formerly usual interpretation: ‘‘ four- 
Sooted beasts of all sorts, i.e. of very many kinds,’’ is linguistically erroneous. 
The phenomenon in its supernatural visionary character exhibits as present 
in the oxevoc (év @ ünnpxe) all four-footed beasts, reptiles, and birds, all kinds 
of them, without exception.®° In a strangely arbitrary manner Kuinoel, 
after Calovius and others, holds that these were only wnelean animals. See 
on ver. 14. — ov oipavoi| See on Matt. vi. 26.— avaorac] Perhaps Peter luy 
during the trance. Yet it may also be the mere call to action: arise.7 — 
Gicov| occide,® slay, not: sacrifice,’ see ver. 10. 

Vv. 14-16. Peter correctly recognises in the summons ficov k. gaye, Ver. 
13, the allowance of selection at his pleasure among all the animals, by which, 
consequently, the eating of the unclean without distinction was permitted 
to him. Hence, and not because only unclean animals were seen in the 
vessel, his strongly declining undanöc, kipie! This kupıeis the address to 
the—to him unknown—author of the voice, not to Christ.'° — Concerning 
the animals which the Jews were forbidden to eat, see Lev. xi. ; Deut. xiv. 


1 For examples of the absolute yevcacdar, 
see Kypke, II. p. 47. 

2 See Elsner, Obss. p. 408; Kypke, l.c. 

3 Comp. v. 5, 11; Luke i. 65, iv. 37. 

4 Comp. Graf in the Stud. u. Krit. 1859, p. 
265 ff. ; Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 285. 

5 Ad Anthol. XI. p. 50. 

6 That fshes (those without fins and scales 
were forbidden) are not included in the vision, 
is explained from the fact that the akevos was 
like a cloth. Fishes would have been unswöt- 


able for this, especially as the animals were 
presented as living (dicov). According to 
Lange, ıt is “perhaps a prophetic omission, 
wherein there is already floating before the 
mind the image of fishes as the souls to be 
gathered.” <A fanciful notion. 

7 ix. 11, 39, vill. 26, and frequently ; comp. 
on viii. 26. 

s Vule. 

® Asin 1 Macc. i. 47 (Thiersch). 

10 Schwegler, Zeller. 


206 CHAP. X., 17-23. 


1 ff.’ — bri obdérore Edayov Trav komwov 7 axäfapr.] for never ate I anything com- 
mon or unclean, the Talmudic xov 1x Dd, ü.e. for any profane thing I 
have always left uneaten. 7 does not stand for xai,” but appends for the 
exhaustion of the idea another synonymous expression.” —xowvde = B&ßmAoe ; 
the opposite of äyıoc (Ezek. xlii. 20). — Kai gwvf] and a voice, not 7 dwvn, 
because here other words were heard, came again the second time to him, 
mad Ex devtépov, pleonastically circumstantial.*— a@ 6 Ozd¢ éxafdpice, od pi 
kotvov] what God has cleansed, make not thou common, unclean. The mirac- 
ulous appearance with the divine voice (ver. 13) had done away the Le- 
vitical uncleanness of the animals in question; they were now divinely 
cleansed ; and thus Peter ought not, by his refusal to obey that divine bid- 
ding, to invest them with the character of what is unholy— to transfer 
them into the category of the xowdv, Rom. xiv. 14. This were man’s 
doing in opposition to God’s deed. —ézi rpic] for thrice, which “ad con- 
Jirmationem valuit’’ (Calvin) ; &ri denotes the terminus ad quem.* — The 
object aimed at in the whole vision was the symbolical divine announcement that 
the hitherto subsisting distinction between clean and unclean men, that 
hedge between Jews and Gentiles! was to cease in Christianity, as being 
destined for all men without distinction of nation, vv. 34, 35. But in 
what relation does the & 6 Oeöc éxabdpice stand to the likewise divine institution 
of the Levitical laws about food? This is not answered by reference to ‘‘the 
effected and accomplished redemption, which is regarded as a restitution 
of the whole creation,’’® for this restoration is only promised for the world- 
period commencing with the Parousia ;” but rather by pointing out that 
the institution of those laws of food was destined only for the duration of 
the old theocracy. They were a divine institution for the particular people 
of God, with a view to separate them from the nations of the world ; their 
abolition could not therefore but be willed by God, when the time was 
fully come at which the idea of the theocracy was to be realized through 
Christ in the whole of humanity. The abolition therefore does not con- 
flict with Matt. v. 17, but belongs to the fulfilment of the law effected by 
Christ, by which the distinction of clean and unclean was removed from 
the Levitical’domain and raised into the sphere of the moral idea.’ 

Vv. 17-20. The &xoraoıc was now over. But when Peter was very doubt- 
Sul in himself what the appearance, which he had seen, might mean.” "The 
true import could not but be at once suggested to him by the messengers 
of Cornelius, who had now come right in front of the house, to follow 
whom, moreover, an internal address of the Spirit urged him. — &v £avrö] 
i.e. in his reflection, contrasted with the previous ecstatic condition, — 


1 Ewald, Alterth. p. 194 if.; Saalschütz, 
Mos. R. p. 251 ff. 

2 Which Lachm. and Tisch. read, after A B 
N, min. vss. Clem. Or. ; perhaps correctly, see 
xi. 8. 

3 Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 277 ; Bornemann, 
Schol.in Luc. p. xl. f. 

4 See on Matt. xxvi. 42; comp. on John iv. 
5A. 


5 Bernhardy, p. 252. Comp. és rpis, Herod. 
j. 86; Xen. Anabd. vi. 4. 16; and Wetstein, 

6 Olshausen. 

7 iii. 20; Matt. xix. 28; Rom. viii. 19 ff. 

8 Ver. 35; Rom. iii.; Gal. ili. 28; Col. iii. 
11: John x. 16. Comp. Matt. xv. 17, 18. 

® Comp. Rom. ii. 28, 29. See also on Rom. 
xv. 14; Matt. v. 17. 

10 Comp. Luke viii. 9, xv. 26. 


MESSENGERS AT JOPPA. 207 
dinmöp.] as in v. 24, ii. 12. — kai idob] See on i. 10. — imi rdv ruröova] at the 
door. See on Matt. xxvi. 71. — dovyoavres] Kuinoel quite arbitrarily : ‘* se, 
rıva, evocato quopiam, quod Judaei domum intrare metuebant, ver. 18.’ 
They called below at the door of the house, without calling on or calling 
forth any particular person, but in order generally to obtain information 
from the inhabitants of the house, who could not but hear the calling. 
That Peter had heard the noise of the men and the mention of his name, 
that he had observed the men, had recognised that they were not Jews, 
and had felt himself impelled by an internal voice to follow them, etc., are 
among the many arbitrary additions, ‘‘ of a supplementary kind,’ which 
Neander has allowed himself to make in the history before us.— 4724 davacrta¢ 
karan] aa with the imperative denotes nothing more than the adversa- 
tive at. ‘‘Men seek thee : but, do not let yourself be sought for longer and 
delay not, but rather arise’ and go down.’ The requisition with 4724 
breaks off the discourse and renders the summons more urgent.? — und&v 
drarpınöu.] in no respect® wavering ;* for I, etc. The rveiua designates Himself 
as the sender of the messengers, inasmuch as the vision (vv. 3-7) did not 
ensue without the operation of the divine Spirit, and the latter was thus 
the cause of Cornelius sending the messengers. —éyé] with emphasis. 
Chrysostom rightly calls attention to the küp:ıov and the égovoia of the Spirit. 

Vv. 22-25. The communication on 
the part of the angel (vv. 4-7) is understood as a divine answer to the 
constant prayer of Cornelius (ver. 2).— Peter and his six (xi. 12) com- 
panions had not traversed the thirty miles from Joppa to Caesarea in one 
day, and therefore arrived there only on the day after their departure. The 
messengers of Cornelius, too, had only arrived at Peter’s abode on the 
second day,° and had passed the night with him,’ so that now, rn Zmraupıov,? 
it was the fourth day since their departure from Caesarea. Cornelius ex- 
pected Peter on this day, for which, regarding it as a high family-festival, 
he had invited his certainly like-minded relatives and his intimate friends.’ 
— oc de Ey£vero Tov eioeAdeiv Tov II.] but when it came to pass that Peter entered. 
This construction is to be regarded as a very inaccurate, improper applica- 
tion of the current infinitive with rov. No comparison with the Hebrew 
8129 N, Gen. xv. 12,'° is to be allowed, because 7") does not stand abso- 
lutely, but has its subject beside it, and because the LXX. has never imi- 
tated this and similar expressions" by éyévero tov. The want of correspond- 
ing passages, and the impossibility of rationally explaining the expression, 
mark it as a completely isolated’? error of language, which Luke either 


Maprvpobu.] as in vi. 3. —éypyyar. |° 


1 As ver. 13. 

2 See Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 370, Baeum- 
lein, Partik. p. 17 f. 

3 Jak. 1. 6 ; Bernhardy, p. 336. 

4Seeon Rom. iv. 20. 

5 See on Matt. ii. 12. 

&vv.8,9. 

7 Ver. 23. 

8 Ver. 24. [IT. p. 50. 

9 Tovs avayx. didous, sce Wetstein; Kypke, 


10 Gesenius, Zehrgebr. p. 787. 

11 Gesenius, 2.c. 

12 Bvenat Rev. xii. 7it is otherwise, as there, 
if we do not accede to the conjecture of Diis- 
terdieck, éyévero must be again mentally sup- 
plied with o McyayA, but in the altered mean- 
ing: there came forward, there appeared 
(comp. on Mark i. 4; John i. 6), so that it is 
to be translated: And there came (i.e. there 
set in, there resulted) war in heav.n ; Michael 


208 CHAP. X., 26-34. 


himself committed or adopted from his original source,—and not’ as a 
corruption of the transcribers, seeing that the most important witnesses 
decide in favour of rov, and its omission in the case of others is evidently a 
correction.? —émi r. mödac] at the feet of Peter.” — rpocexivyce] See on Matt. 
ii. 2. He very naturally conjectured, after the vision imparted to him, 
that there was something superhuman in the person of Peter, comp. on 
Luke v. 8; and to this, perhaps, the idea of heroes, to which the centurion 
had not yet become a stranger, contributed. 

Vv. 26-29. Kaya airéc| also I myself, I also for mine own part, not other- 
wise than you. See on Rom. vii. 25. — ovvoiA. auro] in conversation with 
him. The word occurs elsewhere in Tzetz.*— eio7%0e] namely, into the 
room. Inver. 25, on the other hand, rov eioeAdeiv r. Il. was meant of the 
entrance by the outer door into the house.— Ye know how, how very unallowed 
it is, ete.— aß&wrov]’ is a later form’ for the old classical aéucorov." The 
prohibition to enter into closer fellowship with men of another tribe,® or, even 
but, to come to them, comp. xi. 3, is not expressly found in the Pentateuch, 
but easily resulted of itself from the lofty consciousness of the holy people 
of God contrasted with the unholy heathen,*® and pervades the later Judaism 
with all the force of contempt for the Gentiles.’ The passage Matt. xxiii. 
5, and the narrative of the conversion of Izates king of Adiabene in 
Josephus," appear to testify against the utterance of Peter in our passage, 
and therefore Zeller, p. 187, holds it as unhistorical. But Peter speaks 
here from the standpoint of the Judaistie theory and rule, which is not in- 
validated by exceptional cases’ and by abuses, as in the making of pros- 
elytes.”” Not even if Cornelius had been a proselyte of the gate’* could 
the historical character of the saying be reasonably doubted; for the 
Rabbinical passages adduced with that view (according to which the 
proselyte is to regard himself as a member of the theocracy,'° apply only to 
complete converts, proselytes of righteousnesss,'° ‘‘quamvis factus sit 
proselytus, attamen nisi observet praecepta legis, habendus adhuc est pro 
ethnico,’’ and are, moreover, outweighed by other expressions of contempt 
towards proselytes, as, e.g.,'” ‘‘Proselyti sunt sicut scabies Israeli.’’? It is 
erroneous to derive the principle which Peter here expresses from Pharisa- 


came, and his angels, in order to wage war. 6 Plut., Dion. Hal., etc.. 1. Pet. iv. 3. 
Among Greek writers also, as is well known, 7 Herod. vii. 33; Xen. Mem. i. 1. 9, Cyrop. 
the verb to be repeated in thought is often to i. 6. 6. 
be taken in an altered meaning. Comp. e.g. 8 The classical aAAödvAos is not elsewhere 
Plat. Rep. p. 471 C, and Stallb. in doc. Least found in the N. T., but often in the LXX. and 
of all will such a supplement occasion difi- Apocr. The designation is here tenderly for- 
culty in a prophetic representation, which is bearing. It is otherwise in ver. 45, xi. 3. 
often stiff, angular, and abrupt in its delinea- 9 Ewald, Alterth. p. 310. 
tion (as especially in Isaiah). 10 See, e.g., Lightfoot on Matt. xviii. 17. 
1 In opposition to Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 11 Antt, xx. 2.41. 
848, and Rinck, Zucubr. crit. p. 64. 12 As Josephus /.c. 
2 Comp. now also Winer, p. 307 (E. T. 412). 13 Matt. 2.c. 
3 Comp. Luke viii. 41, xvii. 16; Mark v. 22, 14 But see on vv. 1, 2. 
John xi. 32, al. 15 As Schemoth Rabba 19 f., 118. 3, ad Ex. 
4 Hist. iii. 377, ovvorıdos in Symm. Job. xix. lino. 
19. 16 Comp. Sohar, p. 22. 27. 


52 Macc. vi. 5. 17 Babyl. Niddah f. 13. 2. 


PETER GOES TO CESARAEA. 209 


ism,* or to limit it to an intentional going in quest of them,’ or, according 
to xi. 3, to the eating,’ which must have been made clear from the context. 
— ävavrınpnr.] without contradiction.* — Kai Euoi 6 Oedg Edeıfe] Contrast to 
dueic Emioraode. The element of contrast lies not in the copula, but in the 
relation of the two clauses: Ye know ... . and to me God has showed.’ 
Very often so in John. The ö Ocd¢ édervge took place through the disclosure 
by means of the vision, ver. 3 ff., the allegorical meaning of which Peter 
understood. — und£va «.r.A.| namely, in and for itself.—riv Adyp] with what 
reason, i.e. wherefore. See examples from classical writers in Kypke. 
Comp. on Matt. v. 32. The dative denotes the mediate cause. ° 

Ver. 30. The correct view is that which has been the usual one since 
Chrysostom, held by Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, Bengel, Kuinoel, Olshausen : 
Four days ago I was fasting until this hour, i.e. until the hour of the day 
which it now is, and was praying at the ninth hour. ard reraprng juépac is 
quarto abhine die, on the fourth day from the present, counting backwards, 
and the expression is to be explained as in John xi. 18, xxi. 8; Rev. xiv. 
20.” Comp. Ex. xii. 15, amo theo mp@rns nuepas: on the first day before. 
Cornelius wishes to indicate exactly (1) the day and hour when he had seen 
the vision, — namely, on the fourth day before, and at the ninth hour; 
and (2) in what condition he was when it occurred,—namely, that he had 
been engaged that day in an exereise of fasting, which he had already con- 
tinued up.to the very hour that day, which it now was; and in connec- 
tion with this exercise of fasting, he had spent the ninth hour of the day— 
the prayer-hour—in prayer, and then the vision had surprised him, kai 
ido x.r.A. Incorrectly, Heinrichs, Neander, de Wette render: For four 
days I fasted until this hour, when the vision occurred, namely, the ninth 
hour, etc. Against this view it may be decisively urged that in this way 
Cornelius would not specify at all the day on which he had the vision, and 
that rairy¢ cannot mean anything else than the present hour. — &vör. r. Ocod| 
Ver. 3. Rev. xvi. 19. The opposite, Luke xii. 6. 

Ver. 33. ’Evöriov tov kupiov (see critical remarks), Mn" 239, in conspectu 
Dei. Cornelius knows that it is God, who so wonderfully arranged every- 
thing, before whose eyes this assembly in the house stands. He knows 
Him to be present as a witness. — aro (see the critical remarks), on the part 
of, divinitus.® 

Vv. 34, 35. ’AvoiZac x.7.4.] as in viii. 35.— With truth, so that this 
insight, which I have obtained, is true.’ J perceive that God is not partial, 
allowing Himself to be influenced by external relations not belonging to the 
moral sphere ; but in every nation he that feareth Him and worketh rightness” 


1 Schoettgen. ®Comp. Plat. Gorg. p. 512 C: rırı dia 
2 Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 39. Aoyw TOU KHXaAVvOTOLOV karabpovreis ; 
3 Ebrard, Lange, Ewald. 7 See Winer, p. 518 f. (E. T. 697 f.). 
SEOiWDoxxi, 8. 11, vi. %. '%, xxviii, 11.4. 8 See Winer, p. 347 f. (E. T. 463). 
Comp. avayrı&ertws, Lucian. Cal. 6, Conviv. 9. ® Comp. on Mark xii. 14, and Fritzsche, 
“*Sanctum fidei silentium,’’ Caivin. Quaest. Luc. p. 137 fl. 
Comp. Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. 102; 10 Acts rightiy, comp. Ps. xv. 2; Heb. xi. 33; 


Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 147; Kühner, ad Luke 1. 20; the opposite, Matt. vii. 23. 
Xen. Mem. iii. 7. 6. 


210 CHAP. X., 36-38. 


is acceptable to Him,—namely, to be received into the Christian fellowship 
with God. Comp. xv.14. Peter, with the certainty of a divinely- obtained 
conviction, denies in general that, as regards his acceptance, God goes to 
work in any way partially; and, on the other hand, affirms in particular 
that in every nation — dv re dxpoBvordg korıv, dv Te &urepirouoc, Chrysostom — 
etc. To take this contrast, ver. 35, as no longer dependent on 67, but as 
independent,‘ makes its importance the more strongly apparent. What is 
meant is the ethico-religious preliminary frame requisite for admission 
into Christianity, which must be a state of fellowship with God similar to 
the piety of Cornelius and his household, however ditferent in appearance 
and form according to the degree of earlier knowledge and morality in each 
case, yet always a being given or a being drawn of God, according to the 
Gospel of John, and an attitude of heart and life toward the Christian sal- 
vation, which is absolutely independent of difference of nationality. The 
general truth of the proposition, as applied even fo the undevout and sinners 
among Jews and Gentiles, rests on the necessity of weravora as a preliminary 
condition of admission.” It is a misuse of this expression when, in spite of 
ver. 43, it is often adduced as a proof of the superfluousness of faith in the 
specific doctrines of Christianity ; for dexröc auro éore in fact denotes (ver. 
36 ff.) the capability, in relation to God, of becoming a Christian, and not 
the capability of being saved without Christ. Bengel rightly says: ‘‘non 
indifferentismus religionum, sed indifferentia nationum hic asseritur.’’ — Re- 
specting poowroAnrrnc, not found elsewhere, see on Gal. ii. 6 (v’). 

Vv. 36-43. After this general declaration regarding the acceptableness for 
Christianity, Peter now prepares those present for its actual acceptance, by 
shortly explaining the characteristic dignity of Jesus, inasmuch as he (1) 
reminds them of His earthly work to His death on the cross, vv. 36-39 ; 
(2) then points to His resurrection and to the apostolic commission which 
the disciples had received from the Risen One, vv. 40-42 ; and finally, (3) 
mentions the prophetic prediction, which indicates Jesus as the universal 
Reconciler by means of faith on Him, ver. 43.° 

Vv. 36-38. The correct construction is, that we take the three accusa- 
tives: röv Aöyov, ver. 36, TO yevdu. pyua, Ver. 37, and ’Inoovv Tov ano Nalap., 
ver 38, as dependent on öueic oidare, ver. 37, and treat ouröc Eorı TavTwv kbptog 
as a parenthesis. Peter, namely, in the röv Adyov already has the dueic oidare 
in view; but he interrupts himself by the insertion oürög . . . kbptoc, and 
now resumes the thought begun in ver. 36, in order to carry it out more 
amply, and that in such a way that he now puts üweic oidare first, and then 
attaches the continuation in its extended and amplified form by ’Iyoovv röv 
azo Nag. by way of apposition. The message, which He (God, ver. 35) sent to 
the Israelites,* when He made known salvation through Jesus Christ, He is Lord 
of all!—ye know the word, which went forth through all Judaea, having begun 
Srom Galilee after the baptism which John preached—Jesus of Nazareth, ye know 
how God anointed Him, consecrated Him to be the Messianic King,° with the 


1 Luther, Castalio, and many others. 55 f. 
211.38; 111 19,100. 4 Comp. xiii. 26. 
3 Comp. Seyler in the Stud. uw. Krit. 1832, p. 5 See on iv. 27. 


PETER’S ADDRESS. 211 


Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing, etc. This 
view is quite in keeping with the hurriedly aggregated and inartistic mode 
of expression of Peter, particularly at this urgent moment of extraordinary 
and profound emotion.‘ The most plausible objection to this construction 
is that of Bengel :? ‘‘ Noverant auditores historiam, de qua moa, non item 
rationes interiores, de quibus hoc versu.’’ But the contents of the Aöyoc is, 
in fact, stated by eipzumv dia I. X. so generally and, without its rationes 
interiores, so purely historically, that in that general shape it could not be 
anything strange to hearers, to whom that was known, which is said in vv. 
37 and 38. Erasmus, Er. Schmid, Homberg, Wolf, Heumann, Beck,’ 
Heinrichs, Kuinoel make the connection almost as we have given it; but 
they attach üweic oidare to tov Aöyov, and take rd yevduevov pjua as apposition 
to röv Adyov,—by which, however, oüröc &orı mavrwv kupıoc makes its weight, 
in keeping with the connection, far less sensibly felt than according to our 
view, under which it by the very fact of its high significance as an element 
breaks off the construction. Others refer röv Adyov ov x.r.A. to what precedes, 
in which case, however, it cannot be taken either as for dv Adyov, Beza, 
Grotius, comp. Bengel and others, or with Olshausen, after Calvin and 
others, for xara Tov Aöyov öv x.7.A. ; but would have, with de Wette,* to be 
made dependent on xaraAayu3., or to be regarded as an appositional addition, 
and consequently would be epexegetical of 672 obk gate . . . denröc alro Earı. 
In this case eipyvn would have to be understood of peace between Jews and 
Gentiles. But even apart from this inadmissible explanation of eipyunv (see 
below), the Adyoc of ver. 36, so far as it proclaims this peace, is something 
very different from the doctrine indicated in ver. 35, in which there is ex- 
pressed only the universally requisite first step towards Christianity. More- 
over, Peter could not yet at this time say that God had caused that peace to 
be proclaimed through Christ—for this he required a further development 
starting from his present experience—for which a reference to i. 8 and to 
the universalism of Luke’s Gospel by no means suffices. Pfeiffer,® likewise 
attaching it to what precedes, explains thus : he is in so far acceptable to 
him, as he has the destination of receiving the message of salvation in Christ ; 
so that thus euayyerıl. would be passive,’ and röv Adyov, as also eipyvyv, 
would be the object to it. But this is linguistically incorrect, inasmuch as 
it would require at least the infinitive instead of evayyeArCouevoc ; and besides, 
evayyekllouai rı, there is something proclaimed to me, is foreign to the N. T. 
usage. Weiss * gives the meaning: ‘‘ Every one who fears God and does 
right, by him the gospel may be accepted ;’’ so that röv Adyov would stand by 
attraction for 6 Aéyoc, which is impossible.’ According to Ewald, p. 248, 
Tov Adyov x.r.A. is intended to be nothing but an explanation to dicasocbvyv. 
A view which is the more harsh, the further r. A6yov stands removed from 
duxacoc., the less röv Adyov öv x.7.2. coincides as regards the notion of it with 


1 Comp. on Eph. ii. 1; Winer, p. 525 (E. T. 5 Buttm. neut. Gr. p. 134 (E. T. 153). 
706). 6 In the Stud. w. Krit. 1850, p. 401 ff. 

2 Comp. de Wette. 7 Luke vii. 22; Heb. iv. 2, 6. 

8 Obss. crit. exeg. I. p. 13. 8 Petr. Lehrbegr. p. 151 f. 


* Comp. Baumgarten and Lange. ° In 1 Pet. ii. 7 it is otherwise. 


212 CHAP. X., 39. 


drkaroo., and the more the expression Zpyaleodaı Adyov is foreign to the N. TF. 
—elpfvyv is explained by many, including Heinrichs, Seyler, de Wette, of 
peace between Jews and Gentiles (Eph. ii. 17), but very arbitrarily, since no 
more precise definition is annexed, although the Jews are just named as the 
receivers of the gospel. Nor is there in what follows any mention of that peace. 
Hence itis to be generally taken as = Diy, salvation, and the whole Mes- 
sianie salvation is meant, which God has made known through Christ to 
the children of Israel ; not specially peace with God,’ which yet is the basis 
of salvation.? — dvd ’I. X. belongs to evayy., not to eipyvmv ;° for evayy. eip. dua 
"I. X. contains the more precise explanation of the röv Ady. év améor., con- 
sequently must also designate Jesus as the sent of God, through whom the 
Aöyoc is brought. — rävrov] not neuter,* but masculine. Christ is Lord of all, 
of Jews and Gentiles, like God Himself,° whose civ6porog He is.° The aim 
of this emphatically added remark is to make the universal destination of 
the word primarily sent to the Jews to be felt by the Gentile hearers, who 
were not to regard themselves as excluded by öv aréar. roic vioig ’Iop.” — 
pyya| word, not the things, de Wette and older expositors, which it does 
not mean even in v. 32; Luke ii. 15.” It resumes the preceding röv Adyor. 
On yevöu., comp. Luke iii. 2. Concerning the order of the words, instead 
of 7d xa’ 6A. r. ’Iovd. yevou. pjua, see Kühner.’—In ver. 38 the discourse 
now passes from the word, the announcement of which to the Jews was 
known to the hearers, to the announcer, of whose Messianic working they 
would likewise have knowledge. — oc éypicev abröv] renders prominent the 
special divine Messianic element in the general ’Inoovv tov and Nat., oidare."” 
As to the idea of this ypiecv, see on iv. 27. — öc dijAdev] him (avröv), who, 
after receiving this anointing, went through, Galilee and Judea, ver. 37, 
doing good, and in particular healing, ete.—In the compound verb karadvvaor. 
is implied hostile domination.!! — wer’ aurov is not spoken according to a 
‘lower view,’’ de Wette, against which, see on ii. 86; but the metaphys- 
ical relation of Christ to the Father is not excluded by this general ex- 
pression,” although in this circle of hearers it did not yet demand a specific 
prominence. Comp. Bengel: ‘‘parcius loquitur pro auditorum captu de 
majestate Christi.” 

Vv. 39-41. "Ov kai aveidov| namely, oi "Iovdaioı. “Ov refers to the subject 
of éxoincev. There hes at the bottom of the xai, also, the conception of the 
other persecutions, ete., to which even the äveiAov was added. See on the 
climactic idea indicated by kai after relatives, Hartung.'*—aveid. kpeudo.] as 


1 Rom. v. 1, Calovius, and others. fit, ut addatur mentio ejus speciatim, quod 
2 Comp. on Rom. x. 15. convenit cum re praesenti.” Comp. Vi. 3, xi. 
3 Bengel and others. 24, xiii. 52; also Luke i. 35, xxiv. 20. 

4 Luther and others. : 11 Jas. ii. 6; Wisd. ii. 10, xv. 14; Ecclus. 
5 Rom. iii. 29, x. 12. xlviii. 12; Xen. Symp. ii. 8; Strabo, vi. p. 
6 Comp. Rom. x. 12, xiv. 9; Eph. iv. 5 f. 270; Joseph. Antt. xii. 2. 3; Plut. de Is. et 
7 Comp. ver. 43. Osir. 41: karadvvaorevov 7 KkataB.agopuevov. 
8Comp on Matt. iv. 4. Comp. karadovAovdv. 

9 Ad Xen. Anab. iv. 2. 18. 12 Comp. John xvi. 32. 

10 On wv. ayiw k. Övvaneı, Bengel correctly 13 Partikell. I. p. 136. 


remarks: ‘Spiritus sancti mentio saepe ita 


CORNELIUS AND OTHERS BELIEVE. 213 


in ii, 23. — mi £iRov] as in v. 30. — al Edwkev K.r.A.] and granted! that He 
should become manifest, by visible appearances, i. 3; John xxi. 1, not to all 
the people, but to witnesses who (quippe qui) are chosen before of God, namely, 
to us, who, etc. — roic mporexeip. imo Tov Ocov] Peter with correct view 
regards the previous election of the apostles to be witnesses of the resurrec- 
tion of Jesus, as done dy God ,;* they are apostles dıa GeA7juato¢ Oeov,* adwpiouévor 
ic evayy. Ocov.° And with the zpo in xpoxeyerp. he points back to the time 
of the previous choice as disciples, by which their election to be the future 
witnesses of the resurrection in reality took place. On rpoyxetporoveiv, only 
here in the N. T, comp. Plat. Legg. vi. p. 765 B. — pera 76 avaor. avtov Er 
vexpov| is not, with Cameron and Bengel, to be connected with éugavg 
yeveodaı, ver. 40,° so that ob zavti . . . auro would have to be arbitrarily 
and vivlently converted into a parenthesis ; but with oirwec cuved. Kk. ovver. 
avro, which even without the passages, i. 4, Luke xxiv. 41, 43, John xxi. 
12, would have nothing against it, as the body of the Risen One was not 
yet a glorified body.” The words clearly exhibit the certainty of the attested 
bodily resurrection, but annexed to ver. 40 they would contain an unim- 
portant self-evident remark. The apparent inconsistency of the passage 
with Luke xxii. 18 is removed by the more exact statement to Matt. xxvi. 
29; see on that passage. 

Ver. 42. To ?aö] can only denote the Jewish people, seeing that the con- 
text speaks of no other (ver. 41), and cannot include the Gentiles also 
(Kuinoel). But the contents of örı . . . verpöv is so different from Matt. 
xxviii. 29, also Acts i. 8, that there must be here assumed a reference to 
another expression of the Risen One, for He is the subject of rapyyy., un- 
known to us. — örı auröc &orıw . . . vexpdv| that He, no other, is the Judge 
ordained by God, in His decree, over living, who are alive at the Parousia,” 
and dead, who shall then be already dead.’—Incorrectly Olshausen, resting 
on Matt. xxii. 32 !—understands by (ovrov x. verp. the spiritually living and 
dead. This meaning would require to be suggested by the context, but is 
here quite foreign to it.’ 

Vv. 43, 44. Now follows the divinely attested way of salvation unto this 
Judge of the living and dead. — ravrec of pop. |] comp. ili. 24.— That every 
one who believes on Him receives forgiveness of sins by means of His name, of 
the believing confession of it, by which the objectively completed redemp- 
tion is subjectively appropriated.!' The general ravra röv mior. eic ait., 
which lays down no national distinction, is very emphatically placed at 
the end, Rom. iii. 22. Thus has Peter opened the door for further an- 
nouncing to his hearers the universalism of the salvation in Christ. But 


1 Comp. ii. 27. tle suitable for the alleged object of vindicat- 
2j. 3, ii, 22, iii. 32, al. ing Paul as it is in i. 21, 22. 
8 John xvii. 6, 9, 11, vi. 37. 7See on Luke xxiv. 51, note; Ignat. ad 
41 Cor, i 1; Gal. i. 1, al. Smyrn.5; Constitt. Ap. vi. 30. 5. 
§-Rom. i. 1; Gal. i. 15. 81 Thess. iv. 17; 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52. 
® So also Baur, I. p. 101, ed. 2, who, at the ® Comp. 2 Tim. iv.1; 1 Pet. iv. 5. 
same time, simply passes over, with quite an 10 Comp. Rom. xiv. 19, 20; Acts xvii. 31. 
arbitrary evasion, the difficulty that the cri- 11 Rom. iii. 25, x. 10, al. 


‘terion of apostleship in this passage is as lit- 


214 CHAP. X., 45-48. 


already the living power of his words has become the vehicle of the Holy 
Spirit, who falls upon all the hearers, and by His operations makes the 
continuation of the discourse superfluous and—impossible.'—Here the 
unique example of the outpouring of the Spirit before baptism—treated, in- 
deed, by Baur as unhistorical and ascribed to the set purpose influencing 
the author—is of itself intelligible from the frame of mind, now exalted 
after an extraordinary manner to the pitch of full susceptibility, in those 
present. The appropriate degree of receptivity was there ; and so, for a 
special divine purpose, the tveiua communicated itself according to the free 
will of God even before baptism.” Olshausen thinks that this extraordinary 
‘circumstance took place for the sake of Peter, in order to make him aware, 
beyond a doubt, in this first decisive instance, that the Gentiles would not 
be excluded from the gift of the Spirit. But Peter had this illumination 
already, ver. 34 f.; and besides, this object would have been fully attained 
by the outpouring of the Spirit after baptism. We may add that the 
quite extraordinary and, in fact, unique nature of the case stands decidedly 
opposed to the abuse of the passage by the Baptists.*® 

Vv. 45, 46. Oi é« meper. mıoroi] those who were believers from the eireumeision, 
i.e. believers who belonged to the circumcised, the Jewish-Christians.* — 
600: ovv720. r. Il.] see ver. 23. — £mi ra é#vy] Cornelius and his company 
now represented, in the view of those who were astonished, the Gentiles as 
a class of men generally ; for the article signifies this. Observe also the 
perfect; the completed fact lay before them. —ydp] reason assigned. ab 
effectu. — Aadovvrwov yAwooaıc] yAdooatc, OY yAdoon Aadciv is mentioned as 
something well known to the church, without the érépaic, by the charac- 
teristic addition of which the event recorded in chap. ii. is denoted as 
something singular, and not identical with the mere yAöooaıc Aakeiv, as it 
was there also markedly distinguished by means of the list of peoples. 
Now if, in the bare yAöooaıc Aadeiv, this yAdooare Were to be understood in 
the same sense as in chap. ii. according to the representation of the nar- 
rator, then—as Bleek’s conception, *‘to speak in glosses,’’ is decidedly to 
be rejected °— no other meaning would result than: ‘‘to speak in lan- 
guages,’’ i.e. to speak in foreign languages, different from their mother 
tongue, and therefore quite the same as érépare yAdooare Aadciv. But against 





doubt at all could remain concerning the im- 
mediate admissibility of baptism. Chrysos- 


1 Comp. on xi. 15. 
2 “ Liberum gratia habet ordinem,’’ Bengel. 


Not the necessity, but the possibility of the 
bestowal of the Spirit befure baptism, was 
implied by the susceptibility which had al- 
ready emerged. The design of this extra- 
ordinary effusion of the Spirit is, according 
to ver. 45, to be found in this, that all seruples 
concerning the reception of the Gentiles were 
to be taken away from the Jewish-Christians 
who were present in addition t9 Peter, and 
thereby from the Christians generally. What 
Peter had just said: mavra tov mıoTevovra eis 
aurov, was at once divinely affirmed and sealed 
by this omuetor in such a way that now no 


tom strikingly calls this event the amoAoyıar 
eyaAnv, which God had arranged beforehand 
for Peter. That it could not but, at the same 
time, form for the latter himself the divine 
confirmation of the revelation already im- 
parted to him, is obvious of itself. 

3 Comp. Laufs in the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 
234. 

4 Comp. xi. 2; Rom. iv. 12; Gal. ii. 12, Col. 
iv. 11; Tit.i.10. On repıroun in the concrete 
sense, comp. Rom. iii. 80, iv. 9, 12, xv. 8; Gal. 
ii. Ys Phil iis: 

5 See on chap. ii. 


GIFTS OF THE SPIRIT. 215 


this we may decisively urge the very expression £r£paıc, with which agrees 
kawaic in the apocryphal passage,’ only added in chap. ii., and almost os- 
tentatiously glorified as the chief matter, but not inserted at all elsewhere, 
here or at chap. xix. or 1 Cor. xii.-xiv. So much the more decidedly is 
yAéooa here and in xix. 6 not to be completed by mentally supplying 
éréparc—so Baur still, and others, following the traditional interpretation — 
but? to be explained : “with tongues,’’.and that in such a way that Luke 
himself has meant nothing else—not, ‘‘ in languages ”’—than the to him well- 
known glossolalia of the apostolic church, which was here manifested in 
Cornelius and his company, but from which he has conceived and repre- 
sented the feast of Pentecost as something different and entirely extra- 
ordinary, although the latter also is, in its historical substance, to be con- 
sidered as nothing else than the first speaking with tongues.* Cornelius 
and his friends spoke with tongues, i.e. they spoke not in the exercise of reflect- 
ive thought,‘ not in intelligible, clear, and connected speech, but in enrapt- 
ured eucharistic ecstasy, as by the involuntary exercise of their tongues, which 
were just organs of the Spirit.” 

Vv. 47, 48. Can any one, then, withhold the water, in order that these be not 
baptized? The water is in this animated language conceived as the element 
offering itself for the baptism. So urgent now appeared the necessity for 
completing on the human side the divine work that had miraculously 
emerged. Bengel, moreover, well remarks: ‘Non dicit : jam habent 
Spiritum, ergo aqua carere possunt.’’? The conjunction of water and Spirit 
could not but obtain its necessary recognition. — rov un Baxt. toit.| genitive 
according to the construction kwAbeıw rıvd rıvog, and un after verbs of hinder- 
ing, as in xiv. 18. — adhoc Kai jusic| as also we, the recipients of the Spirit 
of Pentecost. This refers to the prominent and peculiar character of the 
enraptured speaking, by which the fact then occurring showed itself as of 
a similar kind to that which happened on Pentecost, xi. 15. But xadöc 
kai nueic cannot be held as a proof that by yAéccace Aateiv is to be under- 
stood a speaking in foreign languages—in opposition to Baumgarten, who 
thinks that he seesin our passage ‘‘ the connecting link between the miracle 
of Pentecost and the speaking with tongues in the Corinthian church’? — 
for it rather shows the essential identity of the Pentecostal event with the 
later speaking with tongues, and points back from the mouth of the apostle 
to the historical form of that event, when it had not yet been transformed 
by tradition into a speaking of languages. — xpocérage] The personal per- 
formance of baptism did not necessarily belong to the destined functions of 
the apostohe office.°— &v 76 övöu. rov xvp.| belongs to Barrıch., but leaves 
untouched the words with which the baptism was performed. As, namely, 
the name of Jesus Christ is the spiritual basis of the being baptized ' and 





1 Mark xvi. 17. 3 See on chap. ii. 

2 Comp. also van Hengel, de gave d. talen, 4 Of the vovs, 1 Cor. xiv. 9. 
pp. 75 ff., 84 ff., who, however, here also (see 5 See the more particular exposition at 1 
on chap. ii.) abides by the view, that they Cor. xii. 10. 
spoke “openly and aloud to the glorifying of 6 See on 1 Cor. i. 17. 


Godin Christ.” 7 See on ii. 38, comp. viii. 35 f. 


216 CHAP. X.—NOTES. 


the end to which it refers,’ so it is also conceived as the entire holy sphere, 
in which it is accomplished, and out of which it cannot take place. — 
&miueivar] to remain. And he remained and had fellowship at table with 
them, xi. 3. So much the more surprising is his iréxpioue at Antioch, Gal. 
ri si 


Norges BY AMERICAN EDITOR. 


(s!) Conversion of Cornelius. V.1. 


The event recorded in this chapter was an important crisis in the progress of 
Christianity. Hitherto it had won its way among Jews, and through their in- 
strumentality, so that it might be regarded as a peculiar Jewish sect ; but now 
it was to be presented as a religion for the race, Jew and Gentile alike—a wor- 
ship for the world. All restrictions of every kind were now to be removed, 
and the universal adaptation and power of the gospel was to be proclaimed and 
exemplified. What seems to us simple as a self-evident truth was then a mys- 
tery—that the Gentiles should be ‘‘partakers of the promise in Christ by the 
gospel.” 

Paul had already been chosen and was being prepared for the great work of 
making known unto the Gentiles ‘‘the unsearchable riches of Christ.” And 
now Peter is specially commissioned to open the door for the Gentile world. 
The apostles and many of the Jewish believers doubtless expected that the 
gospel should be preached to the Gentiles. The predictions of the Old Testa- 
ment, the statements of our Lord, and the distinct tenor of their commission 
received from him, to disciple all nations, clearly and unmistakably indicated 
the admission of all peoples into the kingdom of Christ. It was difficult, 
however, for them to understand how they could enter except by the divinely 
appointed way. The law of Moses was of divine origin. Circumcision was of 
God. The Jews were his peculiar people, hence it was natural that they 
should think obedience to the law of Moses a prerequisite to admission into 
the Christian church. Although some of the preachers of the gospel may have 
already attained more liberal views on the subject of Judaism, yet it required a 
special revelation to overcome the prejudices of many, and to make the path of 
duty clear. This question the visions vouchsafed to Cornelius and Peter finally 
settled. Henceforth all nations were to be held as equal, and all races wel- 
comed to the privileges and provisions of the gospel. No man should be re- 
garded any longer as unclean, or interdicted from Christ and his salvation. 
The whole transaction is narrated with great minuteness of detail. The two 
visions at Czesarea and Joppa were both real and supernatural, and divinely 
adapted to each other—a striking illustration of divine providence in the man- 
agement of human affairs. The design of both was impressively and practi- 
cally to teach the lesson that God is no respecter of persons ; that mere exter- 
nal adventitious circumstances — as parentage, nationality, profession, or 
rank—are neither a passport nor a barrier to the divine favor ; that in Christ 
Jesus there is ‘‘ neither circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, 
bond, nor free.” Neander says: ‘‘By a remarkable coincidence of inward 
tevelation with a chain of outward circumstances, the illumination hitherto 
wanted was imparted,”’ 


1 xix. 5. 


NOTES. 217 


(rt!) A devout man. V. 2. 


Cornelius, as is shown by our author, was a Gentile, probably an Italian, 
and in no formal way connected with the Jewish state or faith. He had clearly 
abandoned idolatry, and worshipped the one living and true God with reveren- 
tial fear, and prayed to him constantly. As a centurion he had a good posi- 
tion and much influence ; these he used for good purposes. His piety was not 
less practical than it was sincere. His hand obeyed the dictates of his heart 
in acts of munificent generosity. It is probable that through the ministrations 
of Philip or otherwise he had heard of the claims of Jesus to be the Messiah, 
and learned some of the facts of his wondrous life and death. Longing for 
light, he earnestly besought it, and it came. 

His prayers and alms came up “for a memorial before God.” The allusion 
is to the ascending incense from the ancient altar, and denotes their accept- 
ance by God. But, Alexander justly says: ‘Intrinsic merit or efficacy is no 
more ascribed in these words to the good works of Cornelius than to the obla- 
tions from which the figure or comparison is taken.’’ The acceptance implied 
does not denote personal salvation. He had still to hear the words by which 
he should be saved. But his earnest desire for light, and his following it as 
far as he had it, were pleasing to God. “He who does, as far as in him lieth, 
according as natural grace from God enables him to do, as a pagan might do 
from the light of nature—-which, let us not forget, is light from God—desiring 
to be directed aright, and seeking this grace from God’s hand, and supplicat- 
ing the forgiveness of his sins ; to such an one God will open a way by his an- 
gel, or by sending to him teachers to direct him into the perfect way, and to 
teach him those truths which are as light to his soul.” (Denton.) Dick says : 
“Cornelius believed in the true God, and this faith rendered his religious ser- 
vices acceptable.” MacDuff, Abbott, and Jacobson concur with Calvin in the 
opinion that Cornelius was a true, though unenlightened believer before the 
visit of Peter. 

There are three centurions mentioned with commendation by the evangel- 
ists. Of one our Lord said: “I have not found so great faith, no not in 
Israel” (Matt. viii. 10). Another, standing at the cross of Jesus, said: “ Truly 
this was the Son of God” (Matt. xxvii. 54). And in this chapter Cornelius. 


(u!) Fell into a trance. V. 10. 


«The &xoraoıs of Peter seems to differ from the eoaua of Cornelius in this, 
that whereas Peter was entirely insensible to external things, and saw only 
that which passed before his spirit, but which, as in a dream, had no objective 
reality, Cornelius in a waking state, and attentive to what was around him, 
saw what actually occurred. The linen cloth which came down from heaven 
was an internal vision imparted to Peter ; whereas the angel who stood before 
Cornelius was an external reality.’’ (Gloag, so also Alford, who, however, inti- 
mates that the usage of such a distinction between the two words is not always 
strictly observed.) “His senses being abstracted from outward objects and 
rapt in a supernatural state, a vision was revealed to his inner soul, engrossing 
and absorbing all his thought and attention.” This was a sudden and over- 
powering influence of the Spirit ; a state of unconsciousness as to the impres- 
sions made upon the senses, and of entire abstraction from what was going on 


218 CHAP, X.—NOTES. 


in the world around him, during which time there are present to the soul clear 
visions of heavenly realities.” The same word is used in the Septuagint con- 
cerning the condition of Abraham when the future history of his posterity was 
revealed to him; also in reference to the condition of Paul, xxii. 17. The 
trance may be distinguished from a dream in that it is not connected with nat- 
ural sleep ; and from a vision, in that the person in a trance is unconscious, and 
the objects presented have no real objective existence. 


(v!) Accepted with him. V. 35. 


In reference to this statement of the apostle Alford observes: “It is very 
important that we should hold the right clue to guide us in understanding this 
saying. The question which recent events had solved in Peter's mind was 
that of the admissibility of men of all nations into the church of Christ. Jn 
this sense only had he received any information as to the acceptableness of men of 
all nations before God. He saw that in every nation men who seek after God, 
who receive his witness of himself, without which he has left no man, and 
humbly follow his will, as far as they know it—these have no extraneous hin- 
drances, such as uncircumcision, placed in their way to Christ, but are capable 
of being admitted into Gods church, though Gentiles, and as Gentiles.” “‘* Itis 
clearly unreasonable to suppose Peter to have meant that each heathen’s natural 
light and moral purity would render him acceptable in the sight of God. And it is 
equally unreasonable to find any verbal or doctrinal difficulty in épyaouevos 
dıkatoovvnv, or to suppose that dıraroovuvnv must be taken in its forensic sense, 
and therefore that he alludes to the state of men after becoming believers.”’ 
This note is adopted by Taylor, and heartily approved by him. 

Lechler forcibly says on this passage : “It is well known that the introduc- 
tory words in the discourse of Peter have often been so interpreted as to teach 
that all religions are of equal value; that faith, as contradistinguished from 
morality, is not indispensable ; and that, with respect to the salvation of the 
soul, all that is specifically Christian is of no importance. But the attempt to 
find a palliation of indifference in the subject of religion in this passage be- 
trays, as even de Wette judges, very great exegetical frivolity ; both the words 
themselves, and also the whole connection of the discourse, as well as of the 
narrative of which they form a part, decidedly pronounce against any such an 
interpretation.” “If the language in verses 34, 35 meant that a heathen, a 
Jew, and a Christian were altogether alike in the eyes of God, and that any one 
of them could be as easily saved as another, provided he was honorable and 
upright in his conduct, then Peter should have simply allowed Cornelius to 
remain what he was—a heathen —without leading him to Christ.” 


CRITICAL REMARKS. 219 


CHAPTER XI. 


VER. 8. xowvdv] Elz, has rav koıwvöv, against A B D E. N, min. vss. and Fathers. 
From x. 14, — Ver. 9. voc] is wanting in A B N, min, Copt. Sahid. Arm, Vulg. 
Epiph. Deleted by Lachm, Tisch. It is an addition, in accordance with ver. 7. 
— Ver. 10, The order aveor. muAıv is, according to preponderant evidence, to be 
adopted. — Ver. 11. 7unv] Lachm, Born, read jjyev, atter A BD N, 40, Without 
attestation, doubtless, from the vss. ; but on account of its apparent irrelevancy, 
and on account of ver. 5, to be considered as the original. — Ver. 12. pddv 
Örakpıvouevov] is, as already Mill saw, very suspicious (as an interpolation from 
x. 20), for it is wholly wanting in D, Syr. p. Cant, ; in A BN, loti: it is ex- 
changed for pydév dıarpivovra or u. dıarpivavra (so Lachm.), and in 33, 46, for u. 
Ötarpıvöusvos. Tisch.and Born, have rejected it ; de Wette declares himself for 
the reading of Lachm. — Ver. 13. dé is to be read instead of r#, with Lachm. and 
Born., in accordance with preponderant authority. — After ’Iörryv Elz. has 
avdpas, an addition from x. 5, which has against it A BD 8, min. and most 
vss. — Ver. 17. de] is wanting in A B D8, min. vss. and several Fathers. 
Deleted by Lachm. It was omitted as disturbing the construction. — Ver. 18. 
&döfalov] The considerably attested édofacav (Lachm.) has arisen from the pre- 
ceding aorist. — Instead of dpaye, Lachm. has dpa, after AB D S, min. A neg- 
lect of the strengthening ye, which to the transcribers was less familiar with dpa 
inthe N. T. (Matt. vii. 20, xvii. 26, Acts vii. 27). — Ver. 19. Zr7edavo] Lachm, reads 
Zredaivov, after A E, min. Theophyl., but this has been evidently introduced 
into the text as an emendatory gloss from erroneously take é7 as denoting 
time, — Ver. 20. é206vres] Elz. reads eiceAQovres, against decisive testimony. — 
"EAAnvas] So A D* N** vss. and Fathers, Already preferred by Grotius and 
Witsius, adopted by Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. Scholz. Born. But Elz. Matth. 
have 'EiAnviorac, which, in particular, Ammon (de Hellenistis Antioch. Erl. 1810, 
krit. Journ. I. 3. p. 213 ff. ; Magaz. f. christl. Pred. III.1, p. 222 f.) has defended, 
assuming two classes of Antiochene Jews, namely, Hebrew-speaking, who used 
the original text of the O. T., and Greek-speaking, who used the LXX. But 
see Schulthess, de Charism. Sp. St. p. 73 ff. ; Rinck, Lueubr. crit. p. 65 £. The 
reading "EiAnvas is necessary, since the announcement of the gospel to Hellenists, 
partieularly at Antioch, could no longer now be anything surprising, and only 
"EAinvas exhausts the contrast to ’Iovdaioıs, ver. 20 (not "Eypaioıs as in, vi. 1). 
"EAAnvior. might easily arise from comparison with ix. 29, for which Cod, 40 
testifies, when after éAdAovv it inserts kai ovvetprovy, — Ver. 22. dıeAdeiv] is want- 
ing in A B N, loti. Syr. and other vss, and is deleted by Lachm. Omitted as 
superfluous. — Ver. 25,! 6 Bapvüßas and the twice-repeated airdov are to be 
deleted, with Lachm. and Tisch., after AB N, al.; the former as the subject 


1 Bornemann has the p’culiar expansion of ovvruxwv mapexddecev abtov EAdelv eis "AvTio- 
the simple text from D: axovoas de, oT: SavAos xeiar. 
éotw eis Tapoov, e&nAdev avagntay avTov Kai ws 


220 CHAP. XL, 1-18. 

written on the margin (seeing that another subject immediately precedes), 
and the latter as a very usual (unnecessary) definition of the object. — Ver. 
26. alrovs] read with Lachm. Tisch. Born. avrois, after A B E 8,min, The 
accusative with the infinite after éyévero was most familiar to the transcribers 
(ix. 3, 32, 37). — Lachm. and Tisch. have «ai after air., following A C NS, 
Cant. Syr. p. Ath. Vig. Rightly ; apparently occasioning confusion, it was 
omitted. — Ver. 28. péyav . . . bots] weyuAmv ... tS is supported by the 
predominant testimony of A BD E § (E has péyav . . . #715), min. Fathers; 
so that it is to be adopted, with Lachm. Tisch. Born., as in Luke xv. 14 (see 
on that passage), and the masculine is to be considered as an emendation 
of ignorant transcribers. — After KAavdiov, Elz. has kaicapos, an inserted gloss, 
to be rejected in conformity with A BD SS, lo%- 40, Copt. Aeth. Sahid. Arm, 
Vulg. Cant. 


Vv. 1-18. The fellowship into which Peter entered with the Gentiles, 
chap. x., offends the Jewish Christians at Jerusalem, but their objection is 
allayed by the apostle through a simple representation of the facts as a 
whole, and is converted into the praise of God.— xara r7v ’Iovdalav is not 
= év tH ‘Iovd,’ but throughout Judaea.” — Ver. 2. dıekpivovro] they strove 
against him.* — oi é« meprrou.] the eöreumeised Christians, as in x. 45, opposed 
to the Gentiles (axpoßvor. Exovrac) whose conversion is reported.— örı is most 
simply taken as recitative, neither quare, Vulg.,* nor because, Grotius supply- 
ing: hoc querimur.— rpöc avdpac x.t.A.] Thus it was not the baptism of 
these men that they called in question, but the fellowship entered into by 
Peter with them, especially the fellowship at table This was the stone of 
stumbling: for they had not come to Peter to be baptized, as a Gentile 
might present himself to become a proselyte; but Peter had gone in to 
them. (w'). Without ground, ° Gfrörer and Zeller employ this passage against 
the historical character of the whole narrative of the baptism of Cornelius.— 
axpoß. &x.] An expression of indignation. Eph. ii. 11.— Ver. 4. ap£&dp. 
éEerid. | he began and expounded, so that apfdu. is a graphic trait, correspond- 
ing to the conception of the importance of the speech in contradistinction 
to the complaint ;” comp. ii. 4.—Ver. 6. eic Av arevioag karevöovv x. eidov] on 
which I, having fixed my glance, observed (vii. 31) and saw, etc. This eidov ra 
rerparoda K.T.A. is the result of the xatevdovv. —x. ra Onpia] and the beasts ; 
specially to make mention of these from among the quadrupeds. In x. 12 
the wild beasts were not specially mentioned ; but there ravra stood before 
ra rerpanr.— Ver. 11. jer] (see the critical remarks) is to be explained from 
the fact, that Peter already thinks of the ddeAgoi, ver. 12, as ıncluded.— 
Ver. 12. oiro:] the men of Joppa, who had gone with Peter to Cornelius, _ 


1 Kuinoel, de Wette. [ed.3. ¢aéd the vison narrated. This in opposition 


2 vy, 15, and see Nägelsb. on the Ziad, p. 12, 

3 Jude 9; Dem. 163. 15; Polyb. ii. 22. 11; 
Athen. xii. p. 544 ©. 

4 Comp. on Mark ix. 11. 

5 Comp. Gal. fii. 12. 

6 See, in opposition, Oertel, p. 211. 

7 The importance of the matter is the rea- 
gon why Luke makes Peter again recite in de- 


to Schleiermacher, who finds in the double 
narrative a support for his’ view concerning 
the composition of the book. — Observe how 
simply Peter makes his experience speak for 
itself, and then, ver. 16 ff., just as simply, 
calmly, and with persuasive brevity, subjoins 
the justification following from this experi- 
ence. 


PETER’S DEFENCE OF HIS CONDUCT. 221 


x. 23, had thus accompanied him also to Jerusalem. They were now 
present in this important matter as his witnesses. — Ver. 13. röv äyyeAov] the 
angel already known from chap. x.,— a mode of expression, no doubt, put 
into the mouth of Peter by Luke from his own standpoint. — Ver. 14. iv oic] 
by means of which. — Ver. 15. év d& ro apEacbai we Zareiv] This proves that 
Peter, after x. 43, had intended to speak still considerably longer. — kai &0° 
nuac and Kai juiv, ver. 17—it is otherwise with dweic, ver. 16-—are to be taken 
as in x. 47.— év apy] namely, at Pentecost. The period of the apostolic 
church was then at its beginning. — Ver. 16. Comp. i. 5. — oc édeyev] A 
frequent circumstantiality.' Peter had recollected this saying of Christ, 
because he had seen realized in the Gentiles filled with the Spirit what 
Jesus, i. 5, had promised to the apostles for their own persons. Herein, as 
respects the divine bestowal of the Spirit, he had recognised a placing of 
the Gentiles concerned on the same level with the apostles. And from 
this baptisma /laminis he could not but infer it as willed by God, that the 
baptisma fluminis also was not to be refused. — Ver. 17. rıorevoacıw] refers 
not to airoic, as is assumed by Beza, Heinrichs, and Kuinoel against the 
order of the words, but to jwiv: ‘‘as also to ws as having become believers, ’’ 
etc., that is, as He has given it also to us, because we had become believers, so 
that thus the same gift of God indicated as its basis the same faith in them 
as in us.— éyo dé ti¢ junv Suvatic x.t.2.] Two interrogative sentences are 
here blended into one :? Who was Ion the other hand? was I able to hinder 
God, namely, by refusal of baptism? Concerning dé, in the apodosis, follow- 
ing after a hypothetical protasis, see Nägelsb. ;* Baeumlein.*—Ver. 18. 
jovyacar | they were silent, Luke xiv. 4, often in classical writers.° The 
following éddfafov (imperfect) thereupon denotes the continuous praising. 
Previously contention against Peter, vv. 2, 3, now silence, followed by praise 
of God.— ipaye| thus, as results from this event. By 77» uerävorav, however, 
is meant the Christian change of disposition; comp. v. 31.— eic (oyv] unto 
eternal Messianic life ; this is the aim of av ueravorav éduxev.® 

Vv. 19, 20. Oi pév viv deaomaptvrec] A resumption of vill. 4, in order now 
to narrate a still further advance, which Christianity had made in conse- 
quence of that dispersion,—namely, to Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, for 
the most part, indeed, among the Jews, yet also (ver. 20) among the Gen- 
tiles, the latter at Antioch.’ — azo r. @2i).] on account of, on occasion of, the 
tribulation.® — éxi Zreodvw} Luther rightly renders: over Stephen, i.e. on ac- 
count of Stephen.’ Others, Alberti, Wolf, Heumann, Palairet, Kypke, Hein- 
richs, Kuinoel, Olshausen, render : post Stephanum. Linguistically admis- 





nelius (Gieseler in Staeudl. Archiv. IV. 2, p. 


1 Luke xxii. 61, Thuc. i. 1. 1, and Krüger 
310, Baur, Schneckenburger, Wieseler, Lech- 


in loc. ; also Bornemann, ad Cyrop. i 2, 5. 


2 Winer, p. 583 (E. T. 784). 

2° On the J/iad, p. 66, ed. 3. 

4 Paritek. p. 92 f. 

> Comp. Locella, ad Xen. Eph. p. 280. 

® Com. owAnen, ver. 14. 

7 The preaching to the Gentiles at Antioch 
is not to be placed defore the baptism of Cor- 


ler), but it was after that event that the mis- 
sionary activity of the dispersed advanced so 
far. See xv. 7. 

8 Comp. Herm. ad Soph. El. 65. 

® Comp. Erasmus, Beza, Bengel, and others, 
including de Wette. See Winer, 367 (E. T. 
489 f.); Ellendt, Zex. Soph. I. p. 619. 


222 CHAP. XI., 19-26. 


sible,’ but lesssimple, as post Stephanum would have again to be explained as 
e medio sublato Stephano. — noav de rives&£ aurov] does not apply to Iovdaioıg,” 
as the 64, corresponding to the wév, ver. 19, requires for aurov the ref- 
erence to the subject of ver. 19, the dıaorap£vrec, and as oiriveg éAMbvTEC eig 
’Avriöyeıav, ver. 20, so corresponds to the dujAfov iwc . . . "Avrioxeiac of ver. 
19, that a diversity of the persons spoken of could not but of necessity 
be indicated. The correct interpretatation is: ‘*The dispersed travelled 
through the countries,’ as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, de- 
livering the gospel — röv Adyov, kar' &£oxyv, as in vill, 4. vi. 4, and frequently 
—to the Jews only, ver. 19, hut some of them, of the dispersed, Cyprians 
and Cyrenians by birth, proceeded otherwise ; having come to Antioch, 
they preached the word to the Gentiles there.” * — rtov¢ "EAAnvag] is the 
national contrast to ‘Iovdaiorc, ver. 19, and therefore embraces as well the 
Gentiles proper as the proselytes who had not become incorporated into 
Judaism by circumcision. To understand only the proselytes® would be a 
limitation not founded here in the text, as in xiv. 1 (x’). 

Vv. 21-26. Xeip «vpiov] See on Luke i. 66; Acts iv. 30. Bengel well re- 
marks: ‘‘potentia spiritualis per evangelium se exserens.’’ — auro»] 
these preachers to the Gentiles. — Ver. 22. eic ra ora] Comp. on Luke iv. 21. 
— 6 Adyoc]| the word, i.e. the narrative of it; see on Mark i. 45. — Ver. 23. 
yapw r. Ocov] as it was manifested in the converted Gentiles. —rq mpoßkoeı 
tic Kapd. mpoouér. TH Kvpiw] with the purpose of their heart to abide by the Lord, 
i.e. not again to abandon Christ, to whom their hearts had resolved to be- 
long, but to be faithful to Him with this resolution.° — Ver. 24. 67 mw... 
rlorewc] contains the reason, not why Barnabas had been sent to Antioch,’ 
but of the immediately preceding éydpy . . . kvpio. —avyp ayaféc] quite 
generally : an excellent man, a man of worth, whose noble character, and, 
moreover, whose fulness of the Spirit and of faith completely qualified him 
to gain and to follow the right point of view, in accordance with the divine 
counsel, as to the conversion of the Gentiles here beheld. Most arbitrarily 
Heinrichs holds that it denotes gentleness and mildness, which Baum- 
garten has also assumed, although such a meaning must have arisen, as 
in Matt. xx. 5, from the context,® into which Baumgarten imports the 
idea, that Barnabas had not allowed himself to be stirred to censure by the 
strangeness of the new phenomenon. — Ver. 25. eic Tapodv] See ix. 30. — 
Ver. 26. According to the corrected reading éyéveto dé avroic Kai Evıavrov 
x.T.2. (see the critical remarks), it is to be explained : it happened to them,’ 
to be associated even yet (kai) a whole year in the church, and to instruct a con- 
siderable multitude of people, and that the disciples were called Christians first 
at Antioch. With ypyyuaricac the construction passes into the accusative 
with the infinitive, because the subject becomes different (cove safyr.). 
But it is logically correct that ypyuatica «.r.A. should still be dependent 


1 Bernhardy, p. 249. 6 Comp. 2 Tim. iii. 10. 

2 Heinrichs, Kuinoel. 7 Kuinoel. 

3 Comp. viii. 4, ix. 38. 8 Comp. on Rom. y. 7. 

4 Comp. de Wette and Lekebusch, p. 105. 9 Comp. xx. 16; Gal. vi. 14. 


5 Rinck. 


THE GOSPEL IN ANTIOCH. 223 


on éyévero abroic, just because the reported appellation, which was first given 
to the disciples at Antioch, was causally connected with the lengthened and 
successful labours of the two men in that city. It was their merit, that 
here the name of Christians first arose. — On the climactic «ai, etiam, in the 
sense of yet, or yet further, comp. Hartung.’— cvvaytyjvac| to be brought to- 
gether, i.e. to join themselves for common work. They had been since ix. 
26 ff. separated from each other.— ypquaricar] to bear the name.? — Kooriavong] 
This name decidedly originated not in, but outside of, the church, seeing that 
the Christians in the N. T. never use it of themselves, but designate them- 
selves by nalyrai, adeAgoi, believers, etc. ; and seeing that, in the two other 
passages where Xproriavoi occurs, this appellation distinctly appears as ex- 
trinsic to the church.* But ıt certainly did not proceed from the Jews, because 
Xptoröc was known to them as the interpretation of WWD, and they would 
not therefore have transferred so sacred a name to the hated apostates. 
IIence the origin of the name must be derived from the Gentiles ın Antioch.* 
By these the name of the Head of the new religious society, ‘‘ Christ,'’ was 
not regarded as an official name, which it already was among the Christians 
themselves ever more and more becoming ; and hence they formed accord- 
ing to the wonted mode the party-name : Christiani,® ‘* auctor nominis ejus 
Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio 
affectus erat.’’ At Antioch, the seat of the mother-church of Gentile 
Christianity, this took place at that time, for this follows from the reading 
éyév, 62 abroic, because in that year the joint labours of Paul and Barnabas 
occasioned so considerable an enlargement of the church, and therewith 
naturally its increase in social and public consideration. And ıt was at 
Antioch that this name was born jirst, earlier than anywhere else,* because 
here the Christians, in consequence of the predominant Gentile-Christian 
element, asserted themselves for the first time not as a sect of Judaism, but 
as an independent community. There is nothing to support the view that 
the name was at first a title of ridieule.” The conjecture of Baur, that the 
origin of the name was referred to Antioch, because that was the first 
Gentile city in which there were Christians,* cannot be justified by the 
Latin form of the word.’ 

Vv. 27, 28. Kaz7/4ov] whether of their own impulse, or as sent by the 
church in Jerusalem, or as refugees from Jerusalem?’ is not evident. — 
mpoonrar] inspired teachers, who delivered their discourses, not, indeed, in the ee- 
static state, yet in exalted language, on the basis of an aroxddvine received. 
Their working was entirely analogous to that of the O. T. prophets. Rev- 
elation, incitement, and inspiration on the part of God gave them their 
qualification ; the unveiling of what was hidden in respect of the divine 


1 Partikell 1. p. 138 f. beck, ad Phryn. p. 311 f. 

2 See on Rom. vii. 3. 7 De Wette, Baumgarten, after Wetstein 

3 Acts xxvi. 28; 1 Pet. iv. 16. and older interpreters. 

4 Ewald, p. 441 f., conjectures that it pro- 4 Zeller also mistrusts the account before 
ceeded from the Roman authorities. us. 

5 Tac. Ann. xv. 44. ® See Wetstein, ad. Matth. xxii. 17. 


6 rpwrorv, or, according to BN, mpwrws, Lo- 10 Ewald. 


art CHAP. XI., 27-80. 


counsel for the exercise of a pyschological and moral influence on given 
circumstances, but alwaysin reference to Christ and His work, was the tenor 
of what these interpreters of God spoke. The prediction of what was fu- 
ture was, as with the old, so also with the new prophets, no permanent 
characteristic feature ; but naturally and necessarily the divinely-illumi- 
nated glance ranged very often into the future development of the divine 
counsel and kingdom, and saw what was to come. In respect to the de- 
gree of the inspired seizure, the zpooqra: are related to the yAdcoare Aadovvreg! 
in such a way that the intellectual consciousness was not thrown into the 
back ground with theformer as with the latter, and so the mental excite- 
ment was not raised to the extent of its becoming ecstatic, nor did their 
speaking stand in need of interpretation.” — avaorac] he came forward in 
the church-assembly. — ‘AyaBoc] Whether the name ® is to be derived from 
335, a locust,* or from 24), to love,’ remains undecided. The same proph- 
et as in xxi. 10. — dia tov mvevuaroce] This characterizes the announce- 
ment (öonuave) of the famine as something imparted to the prophet by the 
Holy Spirit ; hence Eichhorn’s opinion,° that the famine was already present 
in its beginnings, does great violence to the representation of the text, 
which, moreover, by öorıs . . . KAaudiov states the fulfilment as having oc- 
curred afterwards, and consequently makes the event to appear at that time 
still as future, which also péAzew écectac definitely affirms.— mov... 
oixovuévyy| that a great famine was appointed by God to set in over the whole 
inhabited earth. Thus generally is 77» oikovu. to be understood in the origi- 
nal sense of the prophet, who sees no local limits drawn for the famine beheld 
in prophetic vision, and therefore represents it not as a partial, but as an 
unrestricted one. Just because the utterance is a prediction, according to 
its genuine prophetic character, there is no ground for giving to the general 
and usual meaning of 77% olixovu.,—which is, moreover, designedly brought 
into relief by 6%7»,—any geographical limitation at all to the land of Judaea 
or the Roman empire.’ This very unlimited character of the vision, on the 
one hand, warranted the hyperbolical form of the expression, as given by 
Agabus, while yet, on the other hand, the famine extending itself far and 
wide, but yet limited, which afterwards historically occurred, might be 
regarded as the event corresponding to the entirely general prophetic vision, 
and be described by Luke as its fulfilment. History pointed out the limits, 
within which what was seen and predicted without limitation found its ful- 
filment, inasmuch, namely, as this famine, which set in in the fourth year of 
the reign of Claudius (a.p. 44), extended only to Judaea and the neigh- 
bouring countries, and particularly fell on Jerusalem itself, which was sup- 
ported by the Syrian queen Helena of Adiabene with corn and figs.“ The 
view which includes as part of the fulfilment a yet later famine,® which oc- 
curred in the eleventh year of Claudius, especially at Rome," offends against 





1 See on x. 46. 6 Comp. Heinrichs. 

2 Comp. on 1 Cor. xii. 10. ? See on Luke ii. 1. BZ: 
3 Comp. Ezra ii. 46. 5 See Joseph. Antt. xx. 2. 6, xx. 5.2; Eus. 
4 With Drusius. » Baumgarten. 


5 With Grotius, Witsius, Drusius, Wolf. 10 Suet. Claud. 18; Tacit. Ann, xii. 43. 


ANTIOCH SENDS AID TO JERUSALEM. 225 
the words (Acuwov . . . jrıs) as well as against the connection of the history.' 
It is altogether inadmissible to bring in here the different famines, which 
successively occurred under Claudius in different parts of the empire,? since, 
by the famine here meant, according to vv. 29, 30, Judaea was affected, 
and the others were not synchronous with this. Lastly, very arbitrary is 
the assertion of Baumgarten, that the famine was predicted as a sign and 
herald of the Parousia, and that the fulfilment under Claudius was therefore 
merely a preliminary one, which pointed to a future and final fulfilment.— 
On Aıuöc as feminine (Doric), as in Luke xv. 14, see on Luke iv. 26, and 
Bornemann on our passage. 

Vy. 29, 30. That, as Neander conjectures and Baumgarten assumes, the 
Christians of Antioch had already sent their money contributions to Judaea 
before the commencement of the famine, is incorrect, because it was not through 
the entirely general expression of Agabus, but only through the result (öorıc 
kal éyéveto éxi K2avd), that they could learn the definite time for sending, 
and also be directed to the local destination of their benevolence ; hence 
ver. 29 attaches itself, with strict historical definiteness, to the directly pre- 
ceding öorıs . . . KAaudiov.” The benevolent activity on behalf of Judaea, 
which Paul at a later period unweariedly and successfully strove to promote, 
is to be explained from the dutiful affection toward the mother-land of 
Christianity, with its sacred metropolis, to which the Gentile church felt 
itself laid under such deep obligations in spirtual matters, Rom. xv. 27. — 
The construction of ver. 29 depends on attraction, in such a way, namely, 
that rov dé naßnrov is attracted by the parenthesis kadoc yiopeiro rıc, accord- 
ing as every one was able,* and accordingly the sentence as resolved is: oi dé 
The subsequent éxacroc aitav is a 
more precise definition of the subject of öpıcav, appended by way of appo- 
sition. Comp. ii. 3. — r£upaı] sc. rı. — The Christian presbyters, here for 
the first time mentioned in the N. T., instituted after the manner of the 
synagogue (D°}pt),° were the appointed overseers and guides of the indi- 
vidual churches, in which the pastoral service of teaching, xx. 28, also 
devolved on them.® They are throughout the N. T. identical with the 
&rıoxoroi, Who do not come into prominence as possessors of the chief super- 
intendence with a subordination of the presbyters till the sub-apostolic 


ualyrai, kalaoc niTopEtTé Tıc av’TOV, Gpicav. 


1 vv. 29, 30. presbyters. But certainly the presbyters 
2 Ewald. were, as elsewere (xiv.23), so also in Jerusalem 
3 Comp. Wieseler, p. 149. * (xy. 22, xxi. 18), chosen by the church, and 
4See Kypke, II. p. 56; comp. also 1 Cor. apostolically installed. Comp. Thiersch, p. 
XVI. 2. 78, who, however, abitrarily conjectures that 


5 We have no account of the institution of the coming over of the priests, vi. 7, had given 


this office. It probably shaped itself after the 
analogy of the government of the synagogue, 
soon after the first dispersion of the church 
(viii. 1), the apostles themselves having in the 
first instance presided alone over the church 
in Jerusalem; while,on the other hand, in 
conformity with the pressing necessity which 
primarily emerged, the office of almoner was 
there formed, even before there were special 


occasion to the origin of the office.—We may 
add that the presbyters do not here appear as 
almoners (in opposition to Lange, apost. Zeit- 
ait. II. p. 146), but the moneys are consigned 
to them as the presiding authority of the 
church. “Omnia enimrite et ordine admin- 
istrari oportuit,’’ Beza. Comp. besides, on 
vi. 3, the subjoined remark. 

® See on Eph. iv. 11; Huther on 1 Tim. iii. 2. 


226 CHAP. XI.—NOTES. 


age—in the first instance, and already very distinctly, in the Ignatian 
epistles. That identity, although the assumption of it is anathematized 
by the Council of Trent, is clear from Acts xx. 17.! Shifts are resorted to 
by the Catholics, such as Döllinger.” — The moneys were to be given over 
to the presbyters, in order to be distributed by them among the different 
overseers of the poor for due application. — According to Gal. ii. 1, Paul 
cannot have come with them as far as Jerusalem.” In the view of Zeller, 
that circumstance renders it probable that our whole narrative lacks a 
historical character—which is a very hasty conclusion. 


Notes BY AMERICAN EDITOR. 


(w!) They of the circumeision contended with him. V. 3. 


Luke employs a designation here which, when he wrote, was full of signifi- 
cance ; though it probably originated in the very event he here narrates. The 
difference of sentiment manifest now soon came to bea well-defined distinction 
between the Jewish and Gentile portions of the church. It is probable 
that those who reproached Peter with acting disorderly were only a party in 
the church at Jerusalem who regarded the observance of the law of Moses, if 
not essential to salvation, yet of the greatest importance ; and specially that 
the rite of circumcision should be observed first, before any were admitted to 
either social or church fellowship. They did not censure Peter because he had 
preached the gospel to them, or caused them to be baptized, but that he had 
associated with them. His grave offence was that, contrary to the customs of 
his people, and the commands of the rabbins, he had eaten with the uneireum- 
cised. It was a maxim of these teachers that a man might buy food of a Gen- 
tile, but not receive it as a gift from him, or eat it with him. It was to vindi- 
cate himself in this matter that Peter gave explanations to the brethren at 
Jerusalem. So clear, conclusive, and satisfactory was his statement of the 
whole case that his opponents were silenced, and probably most of them for 
the time at least convinced ; and their indignant complaint against the apos- 
tle was changed into joyous thanksgiving to God. This dispute may be con- 


1 Comp. ver. 28; Tit i. 5,7; 1Pet.v.1f.; the Galatians about this journey. For the 
Phil. i. 1. See Gabler, de episcopis primae very non-mention of it must have exposed the 
ecel., Jen. 1805; Münter in the Stud. u. Krit. journey, however otherwise little liable to ob- 
1833, p. 769 ff. ; Rothe, Anfanged.chr. K.I.p. jection, to the suspicions of opponents. This 
1%3 ff., Ritschl, altkath. K. p. 399 ff.; Jacob- applies also against Hofmann, N. 7. I p. 121 ; 
son in Herzog’s Encykt. II. p. 241 ff. and Trip, Paulus nach d. Apostelgesch., p. 72f. 

2 Christenth. u. K. p. 303, and Sepp, p. 853f. The latter, however, ultimately accedes to 

® Ewald’s hypothesis also—that Paul had, my view. On the other hand, Paul had no 
when present in Jerusalem, conducted himself need at all to write of the journey at Acts 
as quietly as possible, and had not transacted xviii. 22 to the Galatians (in opposition to 
anything important for doctrine with the Wieseler), because, after he had narrated to 
apostles, of whom Peter, acccording to xii. 17. them his coming to an understanding with the 
had been absent—is insufficient to explain the —_ apostle, there was no object at all in referring 
silence in Gal. ij. concerning this journey. in this Epistle to further and later journeys 
The whole argument in Gal. ii. is weak, if toJerusalem. See on Gal. ii. 1. 

Paul, having been at Jerusalem, was silent to 


NOTES. 227 


sidered as the commencement of the Jewish controversy, which so greatly 
troubled the early church, and which Paul so triumphantly maintained and 
settled. 


(x!) Antioch. V. 20. 


Next to Jerusalem Antioch is the most important in apostolic history. It 
was the mother church of the Gentile Christians, as Jerusalem was of the Jew- 
ish. Here the first Gentile church was formed, and here first the name Chris- 
tian was applied to believers. Hence also Paul started on each of his three 
great missionary tours. This city, populous and powerful, was ranked next to 
Rome and Alexandria in extent and importance in the Roman Empire. After 
the establishment of Christianity, it became one of the five patriarchates— 
Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Jerusalem being the other four. The 
gospel was first preached to the Gentiles in Antioch, by some who, fleeing from 
persecution, had gone thither, with very great success, probably about the 
same time or shortly after Peter’s visit to Caesarea. The church at Jerusalem, 
hearing of this success in all likelihood soon after Peter’s account of the re- 
ceiving of the Gentiles, sent Barnabas, a man of moral worth and spiritual 
power, and who, being a native of Cyprus, and a friend of Paul, would be in 
thorough sympathy with the work among the Greeks, to inquire into the state 
of things and report. When he saw the great work going on, he felt that aid 
was needed ; and recalling his intercourse with Paul, and the fact that he had 
been specially called and chosen for this very work, he went to Tarsus, and 
brought Paul back with him to Antioch, where for a whole year, in delightful 
fellowship and successful work, they labored together—fratres nobiles. The 
future prominence and splendor of Paul’s work somewhat casts into the shade 
the high character and great services of the good and gifted Son of Consolation, 
who should ever be regarded as occupying a place in the first rank of the 
founders of our holy faith. 


228 CHAP. XII., 1-2. 


CHAPTER XII. 


Ver. 3. ai] is wanting in Elz., but rightly adopted, in accordanee with eonsider- 
able attestation, by Griesb. Lachm. Tisch., because it was easily passed over as 
wholly superfluous. — Ver. 5. &xrevy5S] Lachm. reads £xrevös, after A? BS; 
comp. D, Ev éxteveia. Several vss. also express the adverb, which, however, 
easily suggested itself as definition to yuvou.—vrép] Lachm, Tisch. Born, read 
mepl, which Griesb, has also approved, after AB D 8, min. But epi is the 
more usual preposition with zpocetyecfa: (comp. also viii, 15) in the N, T.— 
Ver. 8. (écat] So Lachm. Tisch. Born. But Elz. Scholz have repıföcaı, against 
AB DN,min. A more precise explanatory definition. — Ver, 9. aire] after 
jKoA. is, with Lachm, Tisch. Born., to be deleted, according to decisive 
evidence, A supplementary addition occasioned by sou, ver. 8. — Ver. 13. adtov] 
Elz. has roi Merpot, against decisive evidence. — Ver, 20, After 7v dé, Elz, has 
6 ‘Hpdoys, against preponderant authority. The subject unnecessarily written 
on the margin, which was occasioned by a special section (the death of 
Herod) beginning at ver. 20. — Ver. 23. dö$av] Elz. Tisch. have rn» dögav. The 
article is wanting in D E GH, min. Chrys. Theophyl. Oec., but is to be re- 
stored (comp. Rev. xix. 7), seeing that the expression without the article was 
most familiar to transcribers ; see Luke xvii. 18; John ix. 24; Rom, iv. 20; 
Rev. iv. 9, xi. 13, xiv. 7.— Ver. 25. After ovumapaA. Lachm. and Born, have 
deleted «ai, following A B D* 8, min. and some yss. But how readily may 
the omission of this cai be explained by its complete superfluousness ! where- 
as there is no obvious occasion for its being added. 


Vv. 1, 2. Kar’ éxeivov 02 tov karpév| but at that juncture,’ points, as in xix. 
23,7 to what is narrated immediately before ; consequently : when Barnabas 
and Saul were sent to Jerusalem (xi. 30). From ver. 25 it is evident that 
Luke has conceived this statement of time in such a way, that what is re- 
lated in vv. 1-24 is contemporaneous with the despatch of Barnabas and 
Saul to Judaea and with their stay there, and is accordingly to be placed 
between their departure from Antioch and their return from Jerusalem,’ 
and not so early as in the time of the one year’s residence at Antioch, xi. 
25.4 — 'Hpödnc] Agrippa I., grandson of Herod the Great, son of Aristobulus 
and Berenice, nephew of Herod Antipas, possessed, along with the royal 
title,’ the whole of Palestine, as his grandfather had possessed it ; Clau- 
dius having added Judaea and Samaria ° to his dominion already preserved 
and augmented by Caligula.’ A crafty, frivolous, and extravagant prince, 


1 Winer, p. 374 (E. T. 500). 5 Joseph. Antt. xviii. 6. 30. 

2 Comp. 2 Macc. iii. 5; 1 Macc. xi. 14. 6 Joseph. Antt. xix. 5. 1, xix. 6. 1; Bell. ii. 
3 Schrader, Hug, Schott. Tale by 

4 Wieseler, p. 152; Stölting, Beitr. 2. Hvreg. 7 Joseph. Antt. xviii. 7. 2; Bell. ii. 9.6. See 


d. Paul. Br. p.184f.; comp. atso Anger, de Wieseler, p. 129 f.; Gerlach in the Luther. 
tempor. rat. p. 47 f. Zeitschr. 1869, p. 55 ff. 


MARTYRDOM OF JAMES, 229 


who, although better than his grandfather, is praised far beyond his due by 
Josephus (v ). — éréBarev rac xeipac is not, with Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and 
others, to be interpreted : coepit, conatus est = &rexeipnoe,! because for this 
there is no linguistic precedent at all, even in the LXX. Deut. xii. 7, xv. 
10, the real and active application of the hand is meant, and not the 
general notion swscipere; but according to the constant usage,” and ac- 
cording to the context, tpocitero ovAAaßeiv, ver. 3, it is to be interpreted of 
hostile laying hands on. Herod laid hands on, he caught at, i.e. he caused to 
be forcibly seized, in order to maltreat some of the members of the church—on 
oi arö, used to designate membership of a corporation, see Lobeck.* Else- 
where the personal dative * or &mi rıva ° is joined with éxiBarreiv räc yeipac, 
instead of the definition of the object aimed at by the infinitive. —On the 
apostolic work and fate of the elder James, who now drank out the cup 
of Matt: xx. 23, nothing certain is otherwise known. Apocryphal accounts 
may be seen in Abdiae Histor. apost. in Fabric. Cod. Apocr. p. 516 ff., and 
concerning his death, p. 528 ff. The late tradition of his preaching in 
Spain, and of his death in Compostella, is given up even on the part of the 
Catholics.° — r. adeAg. "Ioavvov] John was still alive when Luke wrote, and 
in high respect. — uayaipa] probably, as formerly in the case of John the 
Baptist, by beheading,’ which even among the Jews was not uncommon and 
very ignominous ; see Lightfoot, p. 91 (z'!).—The time of the execution was 
shortly before Easter week (A.n. 44), which follows from ver. 3; and the 
place was probably Jerusalem.’ It remains, however, matter of surprise 
that Luke relates the martyrdom of an apostle with so few words, and 
without any specification of the more immediate occasion or more special 
circumstances attending it, drAöc kat oc érvyev Herod had killed him, says 
Chrysostom, A want of more definite information, which he could at all 
events have easily obtained, is certainiy not to be assumed. Further, we 
must not in fanciful arbitrariness import the thought, that by “the en- 
tirely mute (?) suffering of death,’’ as well as “in this absolute quietness 
and apparent insignificance,’’ in which the first death of an apostle is here 
presented, there is indicated ‘‘a reserved glory,’’® by which, in fact, more- 
over, some sort of more precise statement would not be excluded. Nor yet 
is the summary brevity of itself warranted as a mere introduction, by which 
Luke desired to pass to the following history derived from a special docu- 
ment concerning Peter ;!° the event was too important for that. On the 
contrary, there must have prevailed some sort ef conscious consideration 


1 Luke i. 1; Acts ix. 29. 

2 iv. 3, v. 18, xxi. $7; Matt. xxvi. 50; Mark 
xiv. 46; Luke xx. 19, xxi. 12; John vii. 30; 
Gen. xxii. 12; comp. Lucian, Tim. 4, also in 
Arrian., Polybius, etc. 

3 Ad Phryn. p. 164; Schaef. Melet. p. 26 ff. 

4 Ar. Lys. 440; Actsiv. 3; Mark xiv. 46; 
Tischendorf, Esth. vi. 2. 

5 Gen. xxii. 12; 2 Sam. xviii. 12, and always 
in the N. T., except Acts iv. 3 and Mark xiv. 
46. 
© See Sepp, p. 75. Who, however, comes at 


least to the rescue of the bones of the apostle 
for Compostella ! 

7 **Cervicem spiculatori porrexit,'’ Abdias, 
Gc. p. 531. 

8 For Agrippa was accustomed to reside in 
Jerusalem (Joseph. Antt. xix.7.3); all the 
more, therefore, he must have been present 
or have come thither from Caesarea, shortly 
before the feast (ver. 19). 

® Baumgarten, 

10 Bleek. 


230 CHAP. XIL, 3-11. 


involved in the literary plan of Luke,—probably this, that he had it in 
view to compose a third historical book (see the Introduction), in which 
he would give the history of the other apostles besides Peter and Paul, 
and therefore, for the present, he mentions the death of James only quite 
briefly, and for the sake of its connection with the following history of 
Peter. The reason adduced by Lekebusch, p. 219: that Luke wished to 
remain faithful to his plan of giving a history of the development of the 
church, does not suflice, for at any rate the first death of an apostle was in 
itself, and by its impression on believers and unbelievers, too important an 
element in the history of that development not to merit a more detailed 
representation in connection with it.—Clem. Al. in Huseb, ii. 9 has a beauti- 
ful tradition, how the accuser of James, converted by the testimony and 
courage of the apostle, was beheaded along with him. 

Vv. 3, 4. Herod, himself a Jew, in opposition to Harduin, born in Ju- 
daism, although of Gentile leanings, a Roman favourite brought up at 
the court of Tiberius, cultivated out of policy Jewish popular favour, 
and sought zealously to defend the Jewish religion for this purpose.? — 
mpoo&dero ovaraB.] a Hebraism: he further seized.* — r&ooapoı rerpadiors] four 
bands of four— rerpädıov, a number of four, Philo, II. p. 533, just as rerpdc 
in Aristotle and others—quatuor quaternionibus, i.e. four detachments of 
the watch, each of which consisted of four men, so that one such rerpadıov 
was in turn on guard for each of the four watches of the nıght.* — 
peta TO raoxa] not to desecrate the feast, in consideration of Jewish 
orthodox observance of the law. For he might have evaded the Jewish 
rule, “non judicant die festo,’’® at least for the days following the first 
day of the feast,° by treating the matter as peculiarly pressing and 
important. Wieseler” has incorrectly assumed the 15th Nisan as the 
day appointed for the execution, and the 14th Nisan as the day of the 
arrest. Against this it may be decisively urged, that by pera 7d maoya 
must be meant the entire Paschal feast, not the 14th Nisan, because it 
corresponds to the preceding ai juépac Tov aliu.* — avayay. ait. TO Aao] that 
is, to present him to the people on the elevated place where the tribunal 
stood (John xix. 13), in order there publicly to pronounce upon him the 
sentence of death. 

Vv. 5, 6. But there was earnest prayer made by the church to God for him. 
On éxrevyc, peculiar to the later Greek, 1 Pet. iv. 5; Luke xxii. 44.° — 
mpoayew| to bring publicly forward. See on ver. 4.— rn vurri éxeivy] on 
that night; when, namely, Herod had already resolved on the bringing 
forward, which was to be accomplished on the day immediately follow- 
ing. — According to the Roman method of strict military custody, Peter 
was bound by chain to his guard.!? This binding, however, not by one 


1 Deyling, Odss. II. p. 263 ; Wolf, Cur. 6 See Bleek, Beitr. p. 139 ff. 
2 Joseph. Antt. xix. 7. 3. 7 Synops. p. 864 ff., Chronol. d. ap. Zeitalt. 
3 Comp. on Luke xix. 11, xx. 12. p. 215 ff. 
4Onthis Roman regulation, see Veget. R. 8 Comp. Luke xxii. 1. 
M. iii. 8; Censorinus, de die nat. 23; Wet- ® See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 311. 
stein in oc. 10 Comp. Joseph. Anté, xviii. 6.7; Plin. ep. 


5 Moed Katon, v. 2. x. 65; Senec. ep. 5, al. 


IMPRISONMENT OF PETER. 201 


chain to one soldier, but by two chains, and so with each hand attached 
to a soldier, was an aggravation, which may be explained from the fact 
that the execution was already determined." Two soldiers of the retpadiov 
on guard were in the prison, fastened to Peter asleep (kowwu.), and, indeed, 
sleeping profoundly? in the peace of the righteous ;* and two as guards, 
@vAakec, Were stationed outside at some distance from each other, form- 
ing the rpéryv ovaaxjv Kai devr£pav, ver. 10. 

Vv. 7-11. The narrative of this deliverance falls to be judged of in the 
same way as the similar event recorded in v. 19, 20. From the mixture of 
what is legendary with pure history, which marks Luke’s report of the 
oceurrence, the purely historical state of the miraculous fact in its in- 
dividual details cannot be surely ascertained, and, in particular, whether the 
angelic appearance, which suddenly took place,* is to be referred to the inter- 
nal vision of the apostle, —a view to which ver. 9 may give a certain support.° 
But as the narrative lies before us, every attempt to constitute it a natural 
occurrence must be excluded.® This holds good not only of the odd view 
of Hezel, that a flash of lightning had undone the chains, but also of the 
opinion of Eichhorn and Heinrichs, ‘‘ that the jailer himself, or others with 
his knowledge, had effected the deliverance, without Peter himself being 
aware of the exact circumstances ;’’ as also, in fine, of the hypothesis of 
Baur, that the king himself had let the apostle free, because he had be- 
come convinced in the interval (? ver. 3) how little the execution of James 
had met with popular approval. According to Ewald,’ Peter was delivered 
in such a surprising manner, that his first word after his arrival among his 
friends was, that he thought he was rescued by an angel of God ; and our 
narrative is an amplified presentation of this thought. — Ver. 7. gac| 
whether emanating from the angel,*or as a separate phenomenon, cannot 
be determined. — oixyua] generally denoting single apartments of the 
house,° is, in the special sense: place of custody of prisoners, i.e. prison, a 
more delicate designation for the decuwrjpiov, frequent particularly among 
Attic writers.°.—And the chains fell from his hands, round which, namely, 
they were entwined. — Ver. 9. He was so overpowered by the wonderful 
course of his deliverance and confused in his consciousness, that what had 
been done by the angel was not apprehended by him as something actual, 





i See, generally, Wieseler, pp. 381, 395. 

2 See ver. 7. 

3 Ps. iii. 6. 

4 ereorn, see on Luke ii. 9. 

5 Lange, apostol. Zeitalt. II. p. 150, supposes 
that the help had befallen the apostle in the 
condition of ‘second consciousness, in an 
extraordınary healthy disengagement of the 
higher life ” [@eniusleben], and that the angel 
was a “ reflected image of the glorified Christ;”’ 
that the latter Himself, in an angelic form, 
came within the sphere of Peter’s vision ; that 
Christ Himself thus undertook the responsi- 
bility ; and that the action of the apostle 
transcended the condition of responsible con- 


sciousness. There is nothing of all this in 
the passage. And Christ 2 an angelic form 
is without analogy in the N. T. ; is, indeed, 
at variance with the N. T. conception of the 
d0£a of the glorified Lord. 

6 See Storr, Opuse. III. p. 183 ff. 

7 Who (p. 202) regards our narrative as 
more historical than the similar narrativesin 
chaps. v. and xvi. 

8 Matt. xxvili. 3. 

®Valck. ad Ammon. iii. 4; Dorvill. ad 
Charit. p. 587. 

10 Dem. 789, 2. 890, 13. 1284, 2; Thue. iv. 47. 
2, 48.1; Kypke, II. p. 57. Comp. Valck. ad 
Herod. vii. 119. 


232 CHAP, XII., 12-17. 


aAnbéc, as a real fact, but that he fancied himself to have seen a vision, 
comp. xvi. 9.— Ver. 10. rv gépovear eis tiv möAıw] Nothing can be de- 
termined from this as to the situation of the prison. Fessel holds that it 
was situated in the court of Herod’s castle; Walch and Kuinoel, that 
Peter was imprisoned in a tower of the inner wall of the city, and that the 
0A was the door of this tower, if the prison-house was in the city, which 
is to be assumed from ka} &£eAdövrec k.r.A., 1ts iron gate still in fact led from 
the house eic ryv möAıw.—Examples of airduatoc, used not only of persons, 
but of things, may be seen in Wetstein @n loc., and on Mark iv. 28.1— 
bounv uiav] not several. — Ver. 11. yevouevoc év éavtm] when he had become 
(present) in himself, i.e. had come to himself,” “ cum animo ex stupore ob 
rem inopinatam iterum collecto satis sibi conscius esset.”’ 3 — al maone THC 
mpocdok. Tov Aaov r. ’Iovd.] For he had now ceased to be the person, in whose 
execution the people were to see their whole expectation hostile to 
Christianity gratified. 

Ver. 12. Zuvdöv] after he had perceived it, namely, what the state of the 
case as to his deliverance had been, ver. 11.* It may also mean, after he 
had weighed it, Vulg. considerans, namely, either generally the position of the 
matter,’ or quid agendum esset.. The above view is simpler, and in keeping 
with xiv. 6. Linguistically inappropriate are the renderings : sibi conscius ; " 
and: ‘‘after that he had set himself right in some measure as to the place 
where he found himself.”’®— There is nothing opposed to the common 
hypothesis, that this John Mark is identical with the second evangelist. 
Comp. ver. 25, xiii. 5. 

Vv. 13, 14. Tiv Oipav tov rvAdvoc] the wicket of the gate, x. 17. On 
kpobeıv Or körrew, used of the knocking of those desiring admission.” — 
raıdiorn] who, amidst the impending dangers,'’ had to attend to the duties 
of a watchful doorkeeper; she was herself a Christian.— izaxoica] For 
examples of this expression used of doorkeepers, who, upon the call of 
those outside, listen (auscultant) who is there, see Kypke." — rv gwriy roi TI. | 
the voice of Peter, calling before the door.— and rjc xapäc] prompted by the 
joy, which she now experienced, '* she did not open the door at once, but 
ran immediately in to tell the news to those assembled.—azfyy. Eorävaı 
k.T.A.] eioayy&iAcıv is the more classical term for the announcement of a door- 
keeper.'? 

Vv. 15, 16. Maivn] Thou art mad! An expression of extreme surprise 
at one who utters what is absurd or otherwise incredible."* The hearer also 


ı Comp. Hom. Z. v. 749; Eur. Bacch. 47: 5 Beza. 


ayronara Seopa SteAvdn. Apollon. Rhod. iv. 6 Bengel, comp. Erasmus. 
41: avtouator Hvpewv vrocEav oxjes. Ovid. 7 Kuinoel. 
Met. iii. 699. [Phil. 938. 8 Olshausen ; comp. Chrysostom, Aoyırane- 


2 Luke xv. 17; Xen. Anabd. i. 5. 17; Soph. vos ömov Eorıv, also Grotius and others.” 
3 Kypke, comp. Wetstein and Dorville, ad 9 See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 177 f.; comp. 
Charit. p. 81; Herm. ad Vig. p. 749. Becker, Charikl. I. p. 130. 
4 Comp. xiv. 6; Plut. Them.7 : cvvidwv tov 10 Comp. John xx. 19. 
kivövvov, Xen. Anad. i. 5. 9; Plat. Dem. p. 381 11 TJ. p. 60, and ValcKenaer, p. 489 f. 
E, Dem. 17. %, 1351, 6; Polyb. i. 4. 6, iii. 6. 9, 12 Comp. Luke xxiv. 41. 
vi. 4. 12; 1 Macc. iv. 21; 2 Mace. ii. 24, iv. 4, 13 See Sturz, Lex. Xen. II. p. 74. 
v. 17, viii. 8; and see Wetstein. 14 Comp. xxyi. 24; Hom. Od. xviii. 406. 


PETER’S WONDERFUL DELIVERANCE, ~ 233 


of something incredible himself exclaims : naivonar !! — diioxvpiz.] as in Luke 
xxii. 59, and often in Greek writers: she maintained firmly and strongly.— 
6 ayyedoc airov &orıv] Even according to the Jewish conception,’ the explana- 
tion suggested itself, that Peter’s guardian angel had taken the form and 
voice of his protégé and was before the door. But the idea, originating 
after the exile, of individual guardian angels,* is adopted by Jesus Him- 
self,* and is essentially connected with the idea of the Messianic kingdom.° 
Olshausen rationalizes this conception in an unbiblical manner, to this 
effect : ‘that in it is meant to be expressed the thought, that there lives in 
the world of spirit the archetype of every individual to be realized in the 
course of his development, and that the higher consciousness which dwells 
in man here below stands in living connection with the kindred phenom- 
ena of the spirit-world.’? Cameron, Hammond, and others explain: “a 
messenger sent by him from the prison.’’ It is decisive against this in- 
terpretation, that those assembled could just as little light on the idea of 
the imprisoned Peter’s having sent a messenger, as the maid could have 
confounded the voice of the messenger with the well-known voice of Peter, 
for it must be presumed from dioyvpilero obtwc Eyewv that she told the more 
special reasons for her certainty that Peter was there. — Ver. 16. avoi£avrec] 
consequently the persons assembled themselves, who had now come out of 
their room. 

Ver. 17. Karaosicı rn xeıpi] to make a shaking motion with the hand 
generally, and in particular, as here,° to indicate that there is a wish to 
bring forward something, for which 6ne bespeaks the silence and attention 
of those present.” The infinitive cvyav, as also often with vevew and the 
like, by which a desire is made known.*— The three clauses of the whole 
verse describe vividly the haste with which Peter hurried the proceedings, 
in order to betake himself as soon as possible into safe conccalment. Baum- 
garten invents as a reason: because he saw that the bond between Jerusalem 
and the apostles must be dissolved. As if it would have required for that pur- 
pose such haste, even in the same night! His regard to personal safety 
does not cast on him the appearance of cowardly anxiety ; but by the 
opposite course he would have tempted God. How often did Paul and Jesus 
Himself withdraw from their enemies into concealment !— kai roic dere. | 
who were not along with them in the assembly.— eic érepov rörov] is wholly 
indefinite. Even whether a place in or out of Palestine® is meant, must 
remain undetermined. Luke, probably, did not himself know the im- 
mediate place of abode, which Peter chose after his departure. To fix 
without reason on Caesarea, or, on account of Gal. ii. 11, with Heinrichs, 
Kuinoel, and others, on Antioch,’® or indeed, after Eusebius, Jerome, and 
many Catholics, on Rome," is all the more arbitrary, as from the words it 


1 Jacobs, ad Anthol. IX. p. 440. and Wetstein in loc. 

2 See Lightfoot ad loc. 5 Comp. Joseph. Anti. xvii. 10. 2. 

3 See on Matt. xviii. 10. ® Ewald, p. 607. 

4 Matt. xviii. 10. 10 But see on ver. 25. 

5 Heb. i. 14. 11 Even in the present day the reference to 
® Comp. xiii. 16, xix. 38, xxi. 40. Rome is, on the part of the Catholics (see 


7See Polyb. i. 78. 3; Heliod. x. 7; Krebs Gams, d. Jahr. d. Martyrertodes der Ap. Petr. 


234 CHAP. XII., 18-20. 


is not even distinctly apparent that the érepoc röros is to be placed outside of 
Jerusalem, although this is probable in itself ; for the common explanation 
of éeA8dv, relicta urbe, is entirely at variance with the context, ver. 16, 
which requires the meaning, relicta domo, into which he was admitted (A?). 
— The James mentioned in this passage is not the son of Alphaeus,—a tradi- 
tional opinion, which has for its dogmatic presupposition the perpetual 
virginity of Mary,! but the real brother of the Lord,” aderdöc kata capa Tov 
Xpıorov.” It is the same also at xv. 13, xxi. 18. See on 1 Cor. ix. 4, 5; 
Gal. i. 19. Peter specially names him, because he was head of the church 
in Jerusalem. The fact that Peter does not name the apostles also, suggests 
the inference that none of the twelve was present in Jerusalem. The 
Clementines and Hegesippus make James the chief bishop of the whole 
church.* This amplification of the tradition as to his high position goes, 
in opposition to Thiersch, beyond the statements of the N. T.° 

Vv. 18, 19. What had become of the (vanished) Peter,® whether accord- 
ingly, under these circumstances,’ the wonderful escape was capable of no 
explanation—this inquiry was the object of consternation (räpaxoc) among 
the soldiers who belonged to the four rerpadia, ver. 4, because they feared 
the vengeance of the king in respect to those who had served on that 
night-watch. And Herod actually caused those who had been the gidaxe¢ 
of the prison at the time of the escape, after previous inquiry,* to be led to 
execution—araydjva, the formal word for this.” After the completion of 
the punishment, he went down from Judaea to his residency, where he 
took up his abode.— eic r7v Kacdp.] depends, as well as arö 7. ’Iovd., on 
kareAdov, The definition of the place of the dvétpifev!? was obvious of itself. 


u. Paul., Regensb. 1867), very welcome, be- 
cause a terminus a quo is thereby thought to 
be gained for the duration, lasting about 
twenty-five years, of the episcopal functions 
of Peter at Rome. Gams, indeed, places this 
Roman journey of Peter as early as 41, and his 
martyrdom in the year 65. So also Thiersch, 
K. im. apost. Zeit. p. 96 ff., comp. Ewald. 

1 See Hengstenberg on John ii. 12; Th. 
Schott, d. zweite Br. Petr. und d. Br. Judä, 
p. 193 ff. 

2 Lange (apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 193 ff., and in 
Herzog’s Eneykl. VI. p. 407 ff.) has declared 
himself very decidedly on the opposite side of 
the question, and that primarily on the basis 
of the passages from Hegesippus in Eusebius 
ji. 23 and iv. 22; but erroneously. Credner, 
Fini. II. p. 574 f., has already strikingly ex- 
hibited the correct explanation of these pas- 
sages, according to which Jesus and James 
appear certainly as brothers in the proper 
sense. Comp. Huther on James, Introd. p. 5 
ff.; Bleek, Zinl. p. 543 ff. James the Just is 
identical with this brother of the Lord, see, 
especially, Euseb. H. #. ii. 1, where the 
opinion of Clem. Al., that James the Just was 


the son of Alphaeus, is rejected by Eusebius 
(against Wieseler on Gai. p. 81 f.), although it 
was afterwards adopted by Jerome. See, 
generally, also Ewald, p. 221 ff. Böitger, d. 
Zeug. des Joseph. von Joh. d. T., etc., 1863. 
Plitt in the Zeitschr. f. Luth. Theol. 1864, I. p. 
28 ff.; Laurent, newt. Stud. p. 184 ff.—Accord- 
ing to Mark vi. 3, James was probably the 
eldest of the four brethren of Jesus. 

3 Constit ap. viii. 35. The Constit. ap. 
throughout distinguish very definitely James 
of Alphaeus, as one of the twelve, from the 
brother of the Lord, whom they characterize 
as 6 Emiokomos. See ii. 55. 2, vi. 12. 1, 5, 6, vi. 
14. 1, viii. 4. 1, viii. 23 f., vili. 10. 2, viii. 35, 
viii. 46. 7, v. 8, vii. 46. 1. 

4 See Ritschl, altkathol. Kirche, p. 415 ff. 

5 Gal. ii. 12; 1 Cor. xv.%; Acts xv., xxi. 18; 
Epistle of James. 

6 Luke i. 66 ; John xxi. 21. 

7 Klotz, ad Devar. p. 176, comp. Baeumlein, 
Partik. p. 34. 

8 avarpivas, iv. 9; Luke xxiii. 14. 

9 See Wakefield, Sv. crit. II. p. 131; Kypke, 
II. p. 61; and from Philo: Loesner, p. 204. 

10 Vulg.: ¢b¢ commoratus est. 


EXECUTION OF THE SOLDIERS. 235 


Ver. 20.) Ovuouayeir] signifies to fight violently, which may be meant 
as well of actual war as of other kinds of enmity.” Now, as an actual 
war of Herod against the Roman confederate cities of Tyre and Sidon 
is very improbable in itself, and is historically quite unknown; as, 
further, the Tyrians and Sidonians, for the sake of their special advan- 
tage (Wid 7d rpioeodar . . . BaoıAıjc), might ask for peace, without a 
war having already broken out, —namely, for the preservation of the 
peace, a breach of which was to be apprehended from the exasperation 
of the king; the explanation is to be preferred, in opposition to Raphel 
and Wolf: he was at vehement enmity with the Tyrians, was vehemently 
indignant against them.* The reason of this Yvuouaxia is unknown, but 
it probably had reference to commercial interests. — öwoVvuadov] here 
also, with one accord, both in one and the same frame of mind and inten- 
tion.* — rpöc abröv] not precisely : with him, but before him, turned towards 
him.°—Biaorov] according to the original Greek name, perhaps a Greek or ® 
a Roman in the service of Herod, his praefectus cubiculo,’ chamberlain, 
chief valet de chambre to the royal person,® 6 &ml tov Kovrdvog Tov BaciAéwe.? 
How they gained and disposed him in their favour, zeicavtec, possibly by 
bribery, is not mentioned. — did ro tpégecdar . . . BaovduKgc] sc. yopac. 
This refers partly to the important commercial gain which Tyre and 
Sidon derived from Palestine, where the people from of old purchased 
in large quantities timber, spices, and articles of luxury from the Phoe- 
nicians, to whom, in this respect, the harbour of Caesarea, improved by 
Herod, was very useful ; and partly to the fact, that Phoenicia annually 
derived a portion of its grain from Palestine.” 

Ver. 21. According to Josephus, namely, he was 
celebrating just at that time games in honour of Claudius, at which, de- 
clared by flatterers to be a god, he became suddenly very ill, etc. — évdvodu. 
godzra Baoid.| oroAyv évdvoauevog && apyvpiov reroimpévyv racav, Joseph. l.e. 
— The fyjua, the platform from which Agrippa spoke, would have to be 
conceived, in harmony with Josephus, as the throne-like box in the theatre, 
which, according to the custom of the Romans, was used for popular 
assemblies and public speeches,'* which was destined for the king, if Luke 


Tarrn de quépal 8 


1 Chrysostom correctly remarks the internal 
relation of what follows: ev@ews n din kateA- 


(Gerlach), as koırwv is used in Dio Cass. Ixi. 5. 
For the meaning chamber, i.e. not treaswre 


aBev avrov, ei kat un Sua Tlerpov, adda dca thv 
avrov neyaAnyopiav. Com. Euseb. ii. 10. There 
ismuch subjectively supplied by Baumgarten, 
who considers it as the aim of this section to 
exhibit the character of the kingdom of the 
world in this bloody persecution directed 
against the apostles. 

2See Schweighäuser, Zex. Polyb. p. 303 ; 
Kypke, II. p. 63 f. ; Valcken. p. 493. 

3 Polyb. xxvii. 8. 4. 

4 See on i. 14. 

6 See on John i. 1. 

6 See the inscription in Wetstein. 

7 Sueton. Domit. 16. 

© Scarcely overseer of the royal treasure 


chamber, but sleeping-room, is the usual one, 
and lies at the root of the designations of ser- 
vice, koıtwrıapxns (chamberlain) and koırwvirns 
(valet de chambre). Comp. Lobeck, Z.c. In 
the LXX. and Apocr. also korr. is cubiculum. 
See Schleusn. hes. 

® Comp. on Eri, viii. 27, and on koırwv, Wet- 
stein and Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 252 1. 

10 See Nägelsb. on Lliad, p. 50 f. 

11 Joseph. Antt. xv. 9. 6. 

12 1 Kings y. 9, 11; Ezek. xxvii. 17 ; Joseph. 
Antt. xiv. 10. 6. 

13 According to Joseph. Antt. xix. 8. 2,comp. 
xviii. 6. 7, devrepa de Tv Oewpi@y nuepa. 

14 Comp. xix. 29. 


236 CHAP. XII, 21-25. 


— which, however, cannot be ascertained—has apprehended the whole 
occurrence as in connection with the festival recorded by Josephus. This 
festival itself is not defined more exactly by Josephus than as held izép rag 
owtnpiac of the emperor. Hence different hypotheses concerning it, such 
as that of Anger: that it celebrated the return of Claudius from Britain ; 
and that of Wieseler : that it was the Quinquennalia, which, however, was 
not celebrated until August ; a date which, according to the context, ver. 25, 
is too late. — idnunydper mpös aitobc| he made a speech in publie assembly of — 
the people (ver. 22) to them, namely, to the Tyrians and Sidonians, to whom, 
to whose representatives, he thus publicly before the people declared in 
a speech directed to them his decision on their request, his sentiments, 
etc. Only this simple view of rpöc aizoic: to them,’ not: im reference to 
them,—my first edition, and Baumgarten,—as well as the reference to the 
Tyrians and Sidonians, not to the people,” is suggested by the context, 
and is to be retained. That, moreover, the speech was planned to obtain 
popularity, is very probable in itself from the character of Herod, as 
well as from ver. 22; and this may have occasioned the choice of the 
word dnunyopeiv, which often denotes such a rhetorical exhibition.* 

Ver. 22. Hidic dé of KoAakee Tag ove éExeivw mpog ayadov GAAog GAAOVEV dwvac 
aveßowv, Sedv mpooayopevovTec, EUUEVNE TE eine, ExtAéyovTEs, EL Kal uUeXPL VOY OC 
avdpwrov Evoßyümuev, AAA TovvTevdev kpeirrova ce YvyTi¢ oboewo duodoyovmev ! 
Joseph. /.c., who, however, represents this shout of flattery, which cer- 
tainly proceeded from the mouth, not of Jews, but of Gentiles, as occa- 
sioned by the silver garment of the king shining in the morning sun, 
and not by a speech on his part. ‘‘Vulgus tamen vacuum curis et sine 
falsi verique discrimine solitas adulationes edoctum, clamore et vocibus 
adstrepebat.’’* 6 djuoc, the common people, is found in the N. T. only in 
the Book of Acts.’ 

Ver. 23. ’Erarafev aitov ayyedoc kupiov] an angel of the Lord smote him. 
The paroxysm of disease suddenly setting in as a punishment of God, is in 
accordance with O. T. precedents,° apprehended as the effect of a stroke | 
invisibly befalling him from an angel. The fate of Nebuchadnezzar ” does 
not accord with this view, in opposition to Baumgarten. Josephus, l.c., 
relates that soon after that display of flattery, the king saw an owl sitting 
on arope above his head, and he regarded this, according to a prophecy 
formerly received in Rome from a German, asa herald of death, whereupon 
severe abdominal pains immediately followed, under which he expired after 
five days, at the age of fifty-four years. That Zuke has not adopted this 
fable,—instead of which Eichhorn puts merely a sudden shivering,—is a 
consequence of his Christian view, which gives instead from its own sphere 
and tradition the érdratev . . . @e@ as an exhibition of the divine Nemesis’; 


1Comp. Plat. Zegg, vii. p. 817 C: Syuny. 350E. 


Mpos Taldas TE Kal yvvalkas Kal TOY mavra OXAOV. 4 Tacit. Hist. ii. 90. 

2 So Gerlach, p. 60, after Ranisch, de Zucae 5 See xvii. 5, xix. 30, 33. Comp. on xix. 30. 
et Josephi in morte Her. Agr. consensu, Lips. 6 Comp. 2 Sam. xxiy. 17; 2 Kings xix. 35; 
1745; and Fritzsche, Conject. p. 13 f. Isa. xxxvii. 36. 


3 See Stallb. ad Gorg. p. 482 C, ad Rep. p. 7 Dan. iv. 26-30. 


DEATH OF HEROD AGRIPPA. 237 


therefore Eusebius ! ought not to have harmonized the accounts, and made 
out of the owl an angel of death. Bengel: ‘‘ Adeo differt historia divina 
et humana.’’* — avd’ dv] as a requital for the fact, that.” — our Edwre tiv d6Fav 
ro Oc@] he refused God the honour due to Him, inasmuch as he received 
that tribute of honour for himself, instead of declining it and directing the 
flatterers to the honour which belongs to God, ‘‘ nulli creaturae communi- 
cabilem,’’ Erasmus ;* ob« &m&mAnse rovror, the flatterers, 6 BaoıRedc, obd8 riv 
KoAakeiav aoeßovoav aretpéyato. How entirely different the conduct of Peter, 
x. 26, and of Paul and Barnabas, xiv. 14 f. ! — yevduevoe oxwAnndSp.] similarly 
with Antiochus Epiphanes.° This is not to be regarded as at variance with 
Josephus, who speaks generally only of pains in the bowels ; but as a more 
precise statement, which is, indeed, referred by Baur to a Christian 
legend originating from the fate of Epiphanes, which has taken the abdom- 
inal pains that befell Herod as if they were already the gnawing worm 
which torments the condemned !° Kühn,’ Elsner, Morus, and others, entirely 
against the words, have converted the disease of worms destroying the in- 
testines ® into the disease of lice, oSeipiacic, as if 6Verpößpwroc ® were used !— 
The word oxwAnkößp. is found in Theoph. e. pl. iii. 12. 8 (2%), v. 9. 1. — 
&£&ıbvgev] namely, after five days. Joseph. /.c. But did not Luke consider 
the yeröu. oxwAnk. ésépvyev as having taken place on the spot? The whole 
brief, terse statement, the reference to a stroke of an angel, and the use of 
ééwvFev,’ render this highly probable (3’). 

Ver. 24. A contrast—full of significance in its simplicity—to the tragical 
end of the persecutor : the divine doctrine grew, in diffusion, and gained in 
number of those professing it. Comp. vi. 7, xix. 20. 

Ver. 25. 'Yxéorperar] they returned, namely, to Antioch, xi. 27-30, xiii. 
1. The statement in ver. 25 takes up again the thread of the narrative, 
which had been dropped for a time by the episode, vv. 1-24, and leads 
over to the continuation of the historical course of events in chap. xiii. 
The taking of ürforpeav in the sense of the pluperfect," rests on the er- 
ronéous assumption that the collection-journey of this passage coincides with 
Gal. ii. The course of events, according to the Book of Acts, is as follows : 
— While, kar’ éxeivov tov kaıpov, ver. 1, Barnabas and Saul are sent with the 
collection to Judaea, xi. 30, there occurs in Jerusalem the execution of 
James and the imprisonment and deliverance of Peter,” and then,! at Caes- 
area, the death of Herod.'* But Barnabas and Saul return from Jerusalem 


ı A. E. ii. 10. 6 Mark ix. 44 f.; comp. Isa. xlvi. 44. 
2 See, besides, Heinichen, Hac. II. ad Euseb. 7 Ad Ael. V. H. iv. 28. 
III. p. 356 ff. 8 Bartholinus, de morbis Bibl. c. 23; Mead. 


3 See on Luke i. 20. 

4 Isa. xlviii. 11. Comp. Joseph. 2.e. 

52 Mace. ix. 5,9. Observe how much our 
simple narrative—became eaten with worms— 
is distinguished from the overladen and ex- 
travagantly embellished description in 2 Macc. 
ix. 9 (see Grimm in loc.). But there is no rea- 
son, with Gerlach, to explain akwAnkößp. figu- 
ratively (like the German wurmstichig) : worn 
and shattered by pain. 


de morb. Bibl. c. 15; and see the analogous 
cases in Wetstein. 

9 Hesych. Mil. 40. 

10 Comp. Acts v. 5,10. 

11 “ Jam ante Herodis obitum,” etc., Hein- 
richs, Kuinoel. 

12 vy, 2-18. 

13 Ver. 19. 

14 vy, 20-23. 


238 CHAP, XII., NOTES. 


to Antioch.! From this it follows that, according to the Acts, they visited 
first the other churches of Judaea and came to Jerusalem last; so that the 
episode, vv. 1-23, is to be assigned to that time which Barnabas and Saul 
on their journey in Judaea spent with the different churches, before they 
came to Jerusalem, from which, as from the termination of their journey, 
they returned to Antioch. Perhaps what Barnabas had heard on his 
journey among the country-churches of Judaea as to the persecution of the 
Christians by Agrippa, and as to what befell James and Peter, induced him, 
in regard to Paul,? not to resort to the capital, until he had heard of the 
departure and perhaps also of the death of the king. — cvwrapadaf. x.7.A.] 
from Jerusalem ; see ver. 12. 


Notes BY AMERICAN EDITOR. 


(2) Herod. ; V.1. 


This king was the grandson of Herod the Great. He ruled, in some degree 
independently, over a larger domain than that of his grandfather. His rev- 
enues, according to Josephus, were very large—a sum calculated as equal to 
two millions of dollars. He was aman of ability and of royal magnificence ; but 
crafty, selfish, and extravagant, vainglorious, unprincipled, and licentious. His 
reign was short, and was stained by many acts of oppression and cruelty. 
His death, the result of a loathsome and torturing disease, was an evident Di- 
vine rebuke of his blasphemous impiety. In this matter Josephus~ concurs 
with Luke in the main facts of the case. After his death Judea was again re- 
duced to a Roman province. The three Herods are thus distinguished : 
“ Aschalonita necat pueros, Antipa Joannem, Agrippa Jacobum, Claudens in Car- 
cere Petrum.”” 

Renan, speaking of Herod, says: “ This vile Oriental, in return for the les- 
sons of baseness and perfidy he had given at Rome, obtained for himself Sa- 
maria and Judea, and for his brother Herod the kingdom of Chaleis. He left 
at Rome the worst memories ; and the cruelties of Caligula were attributed in 
part to his counsels.” ‘The orthodox [Jews] had in him a king according to 
their own heart.’’ 


(z!) He killed James. V. 2. 


Instigated by the Jews, with whom he sought to be popular, and whose ritual 
he zealously observed, Herod harassed the church by maltreating its members ; 
and finding this course pleasing to the Jews, whose good-will he was anxious to 
secure, he seized James and beheaded him—a mode of death deemed very dis- 
graceful by the Jews. The victim of this high-handed violence was James the 
elder, designated by our Lord a Son of Thunder. Very little is recorded con- 
cerning him in the Acts. He is to be distinguished from James the younger, 
son of Alpheus ; and also from James, the Lord’s brother. The death of James 
verified the prediction that he should drink of his Master's cup. He is the 


1 Ver. 25. 2 See on xi. 30. 


NOTES. 239 


only one of the twelve of whose death there is any account in Scripture, and 
probably the first of the twelve who died. The record of his “ taking off’’ is 
very brief—only two words, aveidev uayaiga. Conjecture as to the cause of such 
brevity is vain. There is a tradition which states that his accuser, or the offi- 
cer who led him to the judgment-seat, was so influenced by the conduct and 
confession of the apostle, that he avowed himself a Christian, and, having 
asked and received the kiss of pardon from James, suffered martyrdom with 
him. “The accuracy of the sacred writer,’’ says Paley, “in the expressions 
which he uses here is remarkable. There was no portion of time for thirty 
years before, or ever afterwards, in which there was a king at Jerusalem, a per- 
son exercising that authority in Judea, or to whom that title could be applied, 
except the last three years of Herod’s life, within which period the transaction 
here recorded took place.’ 


(A?) Peler in prison. V. 5. 


In the war of extermination which Herod had been instigated to wage 
against the Christians he used the policy of first removing the most marked 
ringleaders. He had cut off James, the brother of John, Peter’s oldest friend, 
and one of the three highly favored by the Master, by a sudden and terrible 
death, so as to strike terror into the hearts of the disciples. This first act of the 
bloody tragedy had been played with success, and a second is about to open. 
There remained now no one, unless Saul of Tarsus, more obnoxious or more 
to be feared than the dauntless, intrepid son of Jonas. He therefore is next 
seized, and cast into prison, under many guards—a precaution surely unneces- 
sary, for his friends had no apparent means by which to affect his rescue. 
But possibly some of the courtiers might have heard that he had once before, 
in some wonderful way, escaped from prison ; and hence this double security. 
Not until after the feast of the passover would the punctilious monarch order 
his execution. Meantime the afflicted and disconsolate disciples, conscious of 
their helplessness, turn to the Lord in earnest and continued prayer. The 
last night before the expected execution has come ; the disciples are gathered 
together in prayer ; the apostle, calm in his confidence and fearless in his faith, 
quietly sleeps between his guards. Ere the dawn of the morning a dazzling 
light fills the cell, and an angel arouses the prisoner, and orders him to put on 
his attire, as for a journey. He safely leads him past the first and second 
watches through the gate into the open street, and then leaves him. Peter, 
with difficulty realizing what had been done in his behalf, went to the house 
of Mary, mother of Mark, and sister of Barnabas, and found the brethren there 
still in prayer. Wordsworth thus beautifully writes on this passage : ‘‘ Herod’s 
soldiers were watching under arms at the door of the prison ; Christ’s soldiers 
were watching with prayer in the house of Mary. Christ's soldiers are more 
powerful with their arms than Herod’s soldiers with theirs ; they unlock the 
prison doors and bring Peter to the house of Mary.” And when the answer to 
their prayer had been granted they could scarcely believe that Peter was really 
in person, among them. He related to them all the circumstances connected 
with his deliverance, and they were filled with joy. Peter prudently, in the 
meantime sought safety in concealment.—£ıc Eregov roröv. Alford says: ‘‘I see 
in these words a minute mark of truth in our narrative.’’ Lechler (in Lange) 


249 CHAP. XII., NOTES. 


observes: “The event is indeed most graphically described, and exhibits no 
features that can embarrass any one who believes in the interposition of the 
living God, in the real world, and who admits the actual existence and the 
operation of angels. Hence no sufficient reason is apparent which could induce 
those who admit the miraculous character of the historical facts, nevertheless, 
to assert that legendary matter has been commingled with the pure historical 
elements,” as Meyer in the text has done. 

“ All rationalistic explanations to account for this deliverance of Peter are in 
direct opposition to the narrative. According to Hezel, a flash of lightning 
shone into the prison, and loosened the chains of Peter. According to Eich- 
horn and Heinrichs, the jailor, or others with his knowledge, delivered Peter 
without the apostle being conscious to whom he owed his freedom ; and as the 
soldiers are a difficulty in the way of this explanation, they suppose that a 
sleeping draught was administered to them. All this is mere trifling. Others 
endeavor to get rid of the miraculous by questioning the correctness of the 
narrative. Meyer and de Wette think that the truth is here so mixed up with 
the mythical element that it is impossible to affirm what took place. Baur sup- 
poses that Herod himself delivered the apostle, as he found, in the interval, 
that the people were not gratified by the death of James, but that, on the con- 
trary, that proceeding had made him unpopular. Neander passes over the 
narrative with the remark: ‘By the special providence of God Peter was deliy- 
ered from prison.’ Whenever the miraculous in the narrative is given up, the 
only resource is the mythical theory—to call in question the truth of the his- 
tory—as all natural explanations are wholly unavailing. The narrative, here, 
however, has no resemblance to a myth ; there is a naturalness and freshness 
about it which remove it from all legends of a mythical description.” (Gloag.) 

Renan even admits in a note to chapter 14th of ‘‘ The Apostles :” “ The ac- 
count in the Acts is so lively and just that it is difficult to find any place in it 
for any prolonged legendary elaboration.”’ 


(8?) Death of Herod, V, 23. 


Josephus informs us that Herod died in the fifty-fourth year of his age, in 
the seventh of his reign, having reigned only three years over the whole of 
Palestine. ‘‘ But Herod deprived this Matthias of the high priesthood, and 
burnt the other Matthias, who had raised a sedition with his companions, 
alive. And that very night there was an eclipse of the moon. But now 
Herod’s distemper greatly increased upon him after a severe manner, and this 
by God’s judgment upon him for his sins, for a fire glowed in him slowly,” 
He further speaks of putrefaction, of convulsions, of worms, of fetid breath, 
and loathsomeness generally. He says also that it was said by those who un- 
derstood such things that God inflicted this punishment on the king for his 
great impiety. Just before his death he summoned the principal men of the 
entire Jewish nation to come to him. When they came the king was in a wild 
rage against them all, the entirely innocent as well as those against whom there 
might be ground of accusation. He ordered them all to be shut up in the Hip- 
podrome, and left most solemn injunctions with his brother-in-law, Alexis, 
that when he died they should all be put to death, so that there might be a 
general mourning at his decease. He acted like a madman, and eyen had a 


NOTES. 241 


design of committing suicide. A more miserable death scene has never been 
portrayed than Josephus gives of the impious, infamous, and atrociously ma- 
lignant and cruel Herod. (Josephus Antig. xvii. 6, 5, and 7, and 8.) The 
points of difference between the account given by Luke and the history of Jo- 
sephus are few and unimportant, and easily reconciled. There is really no 
contradiction in the narratives at all, and therefore it is wholly superfluous on 
the part of any commentator to have recourse to mythical explanations ; as it 
the worms—mentioned however by Josephus as well as by Luke—had ref- 
erence to the gnawing worm of remorse which preys upon the consciously 


guilty. 


242 CHAP. XIII. 


CHAPTER XIII. 


Ver. 1. joayv dé] So Lachm. Tisch. Born. But Elz. and Scholz add tuvés, 
against ABD N, min. vss. Vig. A hasty addition, from the supposition that 
all the teachers and prophets of the church of Antioch could not be named, — 
Ver. 4. oöroı] Lachm. Tisch. read airoi, after AB S, min. Vulg. Syr. utr. Ambr. 
Vig. ; Born. has of only, after D, Ath. As the reading of C is not clear, the 
preponderance of witnesses, which alone can here decide, remains in favour of 
the reading of Lachm. — Ver. 6. 6%7v] is wanting in Elz., but is supported by 
decisive testimony. How easily would transcribers, to whom the situation of 
Paphos was not precisely known, find a contradiction in 6%7» and äypı Iladov ! 
—dvdpa rıvd] So Lachm, Tisch. Born., after ABC D S, min. Chrys, Theophyl. 
Lucif. and several vss. After rıva, E, 36, Vulg. Sahid. Slav. Lucif. have avdpa. 
But Elz. and Scholz omit dvdpc, which, however, is decisively attested by those 
witnesses, and was easily passed over as quite superfluous. — Ver. 9. The usual 
kai before arevicas is deleted, according to decisive evidence, by Lachm. Tisch. 
Born. — Ver. 14, 775 Uıoıdias] Lachm, and Tisch. read ryv Tlioıdiav, after ABC 
8. But it lacks any attestation from the vss. and Fathers. Therefore it is 
the more to be regarded as an old alteration (it was taken as an adjective like 
IIvowdexds), — Ver. 15. After ei Lachm. Born. Tisch. have 1s, which has pre- 
ponderant attestation, and from its apparent superfluousness, as well as from 
its position between two words beginning with E, might very easily be omitted. 
— Ver. 17. After rotrov Lachm. reads, with Elz., ’Iopa7?, which also Born. has 
defended, following ABCD &, vss. Its being self-evident gave occasion to 
its being passed over, as was in other witnesses rovrov, and in others Aaoö 
tovtov. — Ver. 18. étpodod.] So (after Mill, Grabe, and others) Griesb. Matthaei, 
Lachm. Scholz, Tisch., following A C* E, min. vss. But Elz. Tisch. and Born, 
have étporod. (mores eorum sustinuit, Vulg.).. An old insertion of the word 
which came more readily to hand in writing, and was also regarded as more ap- 
propriate. See,the exegetical remarks. — Ver. 19. katexAnpovounoev] Elz, reads 
karekAmpodörnoev, against decisive witnesses. An interpretation on account of 
the active sense. — Ver. 20. kat werd . . . EdwKe) Lachm. reads 65 Ereoı Terpa- 
KoololS KaIME VTNKOVTA, Kal peta raüra ~dwkev, Which Griesb. has recommended 
and Born. adopted, after A BC NS, min. Vulg. An alteration, in order to re- 
move somehow the chronological difficulty. — Ver. 23. 7yaye] Elz. and Born, 
read 7yeıpe, in opposition to ABE GH SS, min. and several vss. and Fathers. 
An interpretation in accordance with ver. 22.— Ver. 27. üreoräAn] Lachm. 
Tisch. Born. read éareordAn, which is so decidedly attested by AB C D 8, 
min. Chrys, that the Recepta can only be regarded as having arisen from neg- 
lect of the double compound. — Ver. 31. viv] is wanting in Elz., but is, accord- 
ing to important attestation, to be recogized as genuine, and was omitted 
because those who are mentioned were already long ago witnesses of Jesus, 
Hence others have aypı viv (D. Syr. p. Vulg. Cant. ; so Born.) ; and others still, 
cai vov (Arm.). — Ver. 32. atrav juiv] Sahid. Ar. Ambr. ms, Bed. gr. have only 


CRITICAL REMARKS, 243 


auröv. A B C*D IS, Aeth. Vulg. Hil. Ambr. Bed. have only jjudv (so Lachm. 
and Born., who, however, conjectures 7uiv!), for which Tol. read duöv. Sheer 
alterations from want of acquaintance with such juxtaposition of the genitive 
and dative. — Ver. 33, 76 mpotw] Elz. and Scholz read 16 devrépw (after paru@). 
But ro tpéry, which (following Erasm, and Mill) Griesb. Lachm. (who places 
it after yeypanraı, where A BC N, lot. 40 have their ro devr£pw) Tisch. Born. 
have adopted, is, in accordance with D, Or. and several other Fathers, to be 
considered as the original, which was supplanted by ro devripw according to 
the usual numbering of the Psalms. The bare ıaAuo, which Hesych. presb. 
and some more recent codd. have, without any numeral, is, although defended 
by Bengel and others, to be considered as another mode of obviating the 
difficulty erroneously assumed, — Ver. 41. 6] Elz. reads , which, as the LXX. 
at Hab. i. 5 has 0, would have to be preferred, were not the quite decisive ex- 
ternal attestation in favour of 6. — The second épyov is wanting in D E G, min. 
Chrys. Cosm. Theophyl. Oec. and several vss. ; but it was easily omitted, as it 
was regarded as unnecessary and was not found in the LXX. l.c.— Ver. 42- 
auröv] Els, reads éx 775 avvaywy7S rav ’lovdaiwv. Other variations are adrov kr. 
ovvay. T. ’Iovd. or rwv anooröAwv Ex T. ovvay. T. ’Iovd. Sheer interpolations, be- 
cause ver. 42 begins a church lesson. The simple airdév has decisive attesta- 
tion, — After zapexd? ovv Elz. has ra 0vy, which, although retained by Matthaei, 
is spurious, according to just as decisive testimony. It was inserted, because 
it was considered that the request contained here must not, according to ver. 
45, be ascribed to the Jews, but rather to the Gentiles, according to ver. 48. — 
‘Ver. 43. After zpocAad, A B (?) C D &, vss, Chrys. have adrois (so Lachm, and 
Born.). A familiar addition. — mpoouevew] Els. reads érmeévew, against decisive 
evidence, — Ver. 44, éyoucvw] Elz. reads épyouévw, against A C** E*, min, An 
alteration, from want of acquaintance with this use of the word, as in Luke xiii- 
33 ; Acts xx. 15, xxi. 26. — Ver. 45. avriAéyovtes kai] is wanting in A B C GX, 
min and several vss. (erased by Lachm.). E has évavtiovuevor kat. Both are 
hasty emendations of style. — Ver. 50. ras evoy.] Elz. reads kai rds evoy., against 
decisive testimony. xai, if it has not arisen simply from the repetition in 
writing of the preceding syllable, is a wrongly inserted connective. 


With chap. xii. commences the second part of the book, which treats 
chietly of the missionary labors and fortunes of Paul. First of all, the spe- 
cial choice and consecration of Barnabas and Paul as missionaries, which 
took place at Antioch, are related, vv. 1-3 ; and then the narrative of their 
first missionary journey is annexed, ver. 4-xiv. 28. These two chapters show, 
by the very fact of their independent commencement entirely detached from 
the immediatly preceding narrative concerning Barnabas and Saul,* by the 
detailed nature of their contents, and by the conclusion rounding them off, 
which covers a considerable interval without further historical data, that they 
have been derived from a special documentary source, which has, nevertheless, 
been subjected to revision as regards diction by Luke.* This documentary 


1 Lachmann, Praef. p. ix., conjectured ¢¢’ following narrative does not correspond. 
nuav: “nostro tempore.” Comp. Schleiermacher, Zinl. p. 353 f. 

2 Lekebusch, p. 108, explains this abrupt 3 See also Bleek in the Stud. u. Krit. 1856, 
isolation as designed; the account emerges p. 1043. 
solemnly. But to this the simplicity of the 


244 CHAP. XIII, 1-2. 


source, however, is not to be determined more precisely, although it may 
be conjectured that it originated in the church of Antioch itself, and that 
the oral communications mentioned at xiv. 27 as made to that church formed 
the foundation of it from xiii.4 onward. The assumption of a written report 
made by the two missionaries,! obtains no support from the living apostolic 
mode of working, and is, on account of xiv. 27, neither necessary nor war- 
ranted. Schwanbeck considers the two chapters as a portion of a biography 
of Barnabas, to which also iv. 36 f., ix. 1-30, xi. 19-30, xii. 25 belonged ; 
and Baur? refers the entire section to the apologetic purpose and literary 
freedom of the author (c’). 

Ver. 1. This mention and naming of the prophets and teachers is intended 
to indicate how rich Antioch was in prominent resources for the sending 
forth messengers of the gospel, which was now to take place. Thus the 
mother-church of Gentile Christianity had become the seminary of the mis- 
sion to the Gentiles. The order of the persons named is, without doubt, 
such as it stood in the original document: hence Barnabas and Saul are 
separated ; indeed, Barnabas is placed first—the arrangement appears to have 
been made according to seniority—and Saul last ; it was only by his mission- 
ary labours now commencing that the latter acquired in point of fact his 
superiority. — xara tiv oboav éxxAnoiar| with the existing church. £xei is not to 
be supplied.* This oicay is retained from the original document ; in connec- 
tion with what has been already narrated, it is superfluous. — card, with, ac- 
cording to the conception of, here official, direction.* — zpogjra x. diddoxador] 
as prophets® and teachers, who did not speak in the state of apocalyptic in- 
spiration, but communicated instruction in a regular and rational unfolding 
of doetrine.° — The five named are not to be regarded only asa part, but 
as the whole body of the prophets and teachers at Antioch, in keeping with 
the idea of the selection which the Spirit designed. To what individuals the 
predicates ‘‘ prophet’ or ‘‘ teacher ’’ respectively belong, is not, indeed, ex- 
pressly said ; but if, as is probable in itself and in accordance with iv. 36, 
the prophets are mentioned first and then the teachers, the three first named 
are to be considered as prophets, and the other two as teachers. This di- 
vision is indicated by the position of the particles: (1) ré. .. Kai... Kai; 
(2) TE... . al.” — That the prophets of the passage before us, particularly 
Symeon and Lucius, were included among those mentioned in xi. 27, is im- 
probable, inasmuch as Agabus is not here named again. Zhose prophets, 
doubtless, soon returned to Jerusalem. — Concerning Simeon with the Roman 
name Niger,® and Lucius of Oyrene,’ who is not identical with the evan- 
gelist Luke, nothing further is known. The same is also the case with 
Menahem (8139), who had been civtpodoc of the tetrarch Herod, i.e. of An- 
tipas.° But whether oövrpogos is, with the Vulgate, Cornelius a Lapide, 


ı Olshausen. 7 Comp. Kühner, ad. Xen. Mem. ii. 3. 19; 
21. p. 104 ff. Baeumlein, Partik. p. 219 f. 

3-Comp. Rom. xiii. 1. [500). 8 Sueton. Aug. 11, al. 

4 Bernhardy, p. 240; Winer, p. 374 (E. T. ® Rom. xvi. 21 ? 

5 See on xi. 27. 10 See Walch, de Menachemo avvrpodw Hero- 


6 1 Cor. xii. 28; Eph. iv. 11. dis, Jen. 1758. 


FIRST ORDAINED MISSIONARIES, 245 


Walch, Heumann, Kuinoel, Olshausen, and others, to be understood as 
Soster-brother, conlactaneus,' so that Menahem’s mother was Herod’s nurse ; 
or, with Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Grotius, Raphel, Wolf, Heinrichs, Baum- 
garten, Ewald, and others, brought up with, contubernalis,—cannot be deter- 
mined, as either may be expressed by the word.” The latter meaning, how- 
ever,® makes the later Christian position of Menahem the more remarkable, 
in that he appears to have been brought up at the court of Herod the Great. 
At all events he was already an old man, and had become a Christian earlier 
than Saul, who is placed after him (p’). 

Ver. 2. Aectoupyoivtav . . . TO Kupiv] Asırovpyeiv, the usual word for the 
temple-service of the priests,‘ is here transferred to the church (airév) 
engaged in Christian worship,® in accordance with the holy character of 
the church, which had the äyıöryc, the ypioua of the Spirit,° and indeed was 
a ieparevua ayiov." Hence: while they performed holy service to the Lord 
Christ, and, at the same time, fasted. Any more specific meaning is too 
narrow, such as, that it is to be understood of prayer, Grotius, Heinrichs, 
Kuinoel, Olshausen, and many others, on account of ver. 3, but see on 
that passage, or of preaching, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and others in Wolf. 
Both without doubt are included, not, however, the mass, as Catholics hold ; 
but certainly the spiritual songs. — eine ro rvevua td äyıov]) the Holy Spirit 
said,’ namely, by one or some of these Aeırovpyovvrec, probably by one of the 
prophets, who announced to the church the utterance of the Spirit revealed 
to him. — 6%] with the imperative makes the summons more decided and 
more urgent. '” — joc] to me, for my service. — 6 rpookéxAnuat aitobc| for which, 
description of the design, [ have called them to me,” namely, to be my organs, 
interpreters, instruments in the propagation of the gospel. The utterance 
of the Spirit consequently refers to an internal call of the Spirit already 
made to both, and that indeed before the church, ‘‘ut hi quoque scirent 
vocationem illorum eique subscriberent,’’? Bengel. The preposition is not 
repeated before 6, = eic 4, because it stands already before 7d épyov, accord- 
ing to general Greek usage.” 


1 Comp. Xen. Zip. ii. 3. 

2 See Wetstein and Kuinoel. 

3 Comp. 1 Macc. i. 6; 2 Macc. ix. 29; and 
see, in general, Jacobs, ad Anthol. XT. p. 38. 

4LXX. Ex. xxviii. 31; Num. iv. 88; Ex. 
xl. 48; Judith iv. 14; Heb. x. 11; comp. on 
Rom. xv. 27. 

5 The reference of aurov not to the collective 
écxAnoia, but to the prophets and teachers 
named in ver. 1 (Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, and 
many others, including Baumgarten, Hoele- 
mann, neue Bibelstud. p. 829; Laurent, newt. 
Stud. p. 146), isnot to be approved on account 
of adopicare and on account uf ver. 3. The 
whole highly important missionary act wonld, 
according to this view, be performed only in 
the circle of five persons, of whom, moreover, 
two were the missionaries themselves destined 
by the Spirit, and the church as such would 
have taken no part at all, not being even rep- 


resented by its presbyters,—a proceeding 
which neither agrees with the fellowship of 
the Spirit in the constitution of the apostolic 
church, nor corresponds with the analogous 
concrete cases of the choice of an apostle, 
chap. i. and of the deacons, chap. vi. Comp. 
also xiv. 27, where the missionaries, on their 
return, make their report to the church. 
Moreover, itisevident of itself thatthe proph- 
ets and teachers are included in avtav. 

® 1 John ii. 20. 

71 Pet. ii. 6. 

8 See on Eph. v. 19; Col. iii. 16. 

® Comp. on xx. 28. 

10 Baeumlein, Purtik. p. 104 f. 
Luke ii. 15. 

41 xvi. 10. 

12 See Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 82; Stallb. 
ad. Phaed. p. 76 D; Winer, p. 393 (E. T. 
524 f.). 


Comp. on 


246 CHAP, XIIL, 3-9. 


Ver. 3. The translation must be: Afterwards, after having fasted and 
prayed and laid their hands on them, as the consecration communicating the 
gift of the Spirit for the new and special holy office,’ they sent them away. 
For there is here meant a solemnity specially appointed by the church on 
occasion of that address of the Spirit, different from the preceding, ver. 2 ; 
and not the termination thereof.? This is evident from the words of Luke 
himself, who describes this act differently, vyoreic. x. mpooevé., from the 
preceding, ?Asırovpy. x. vyor., and by röre separates it as something later ; 
and also because vyoteicartec, in the sense of ‘‘ when they had finished fast- 
ing,’’ does not even give here any conceivable sense. — azéAvoavy] What the 
Spirit had meant by eic épyov, 6 mpook&rA. avrobc, might, when they heard 
that address, come directly home to their consciousness, especially as they 
might be acquainted in particular with the destination of Saul at ix. 15; 
or might be explained by the receiver and interpreter of the Spirit’s 
utterance. — That, moreover, the imposition of hands was not by the whole 
church, but by its representatives the presbyters,* was obvious of itself to 
the reader. i 

Vv. 4, 5. Abroi (see the critical remarks): such was the course taken 
with them ; they themselves, therefore, ipsi igitur. — éxreugO. i7d rov mvenn.] 
for ‘‘vocatio prorsus divina erat; tantum manu Dei oblatos amplexa 
erat ecclesia,’’ Calvin. — They turned themselves at first to the quarter 
where they might hope most easily to form connections—it was, in fact, 
the first attempt of their new ministry—to Cyprus, the native country of 
Barnabas, iv. 36, to which the direct route from Antioch by way of the 
neighbouring Seleucia, in Syria, also called Pieria, and situated at the 
mouth of the Orontes, led. Having there embarked, they landed at the 
city of Salamis, on the eastern coast of the island of Cyprus. — yevöu. év] 
arrived at. Often so in classical authors since Homer.* —’Twdirqv] See on 
xii. 12. —drypéryv| as servant, who assisted the official work of the 
apostles by performing external services, errands, missions, etc., probably 
also acts of baptism.® “ Barnabas et Paulus divinitus nominati, atque his 
liberum fuit alios adsciscere,’’ Bengel. — As to their practice of preaching 
in the synagogues, see on ver. 14. (E?). 

Vv. 6, 7. "OAnv tHv vjoov] For Paphos, i.e. New Paphos, the capital and 
the residence of the proconsul, sixty stadia to the north of the old city 
celebrated for the worship of Venus, lay quite on the opposite western 
side of the island.° — yayov] see on viii. 9. Whether he was precisely a 
representative of the cabalistic tendency,’ cannot be determined. But 
perhaps, from the Arabic name Elymas, which he adopted, he was an 
Arabian Jew. uaäyov, although a substantive, is to be connected with ävdpa, 


7 Comp. on vi. 6. the two missionaries to the Gentiles, and con- 

2 Kuinoel and many others: “jejunio et secrates them by its ofice-bearers (Rom. xii. 
precibus peractis.”’ 8; 1 Tim. v. 17). 

3 Not by the prophets and teachers (Otto, 4 See Nägelsbach on the Zliad, p. 295, ed. 3. 
Pastoralbr. p. 61; Hoelemann, /.e.) ; for the 5x. 48; 1 Cor. i. 14. 
subject of vy. 2,3 is the church, and its rep- 8 See Forbiger, Geogr. I. p. 969 f. 
resentatives are the presbyters, xx. 1%, 28, xi. 7 Baumgarten. 


30, xy. 2-23; 1 Tim. iv.14. The church sends 


SUCCESS IN CYPRUS. 247 


ii. 14. — Bapınoove] i.e. PW) VA, filius Jesu (Josuae). The different forms of 
this name in the Fathers and versions, Barjeu, Barsuma, Barjesuban, Bapınoov- 
ody, have their origin in the reverence and awe felt for the name of Jesus. — 
avOurdtw| Cyprus, which Augustus had restored to the senate, was, it is 
true, at that time a propraetorian province ;! but all provincial rulers were, 
by the command of Augustus, called proconsules.? — ovverö] although the 
contrary might be suspected from his connection with the sorcerer. But 
his intelligence is attested partly by the fact that he was not satisfied with 
heathenism, and therefore had at that time the Jewish sorcerer with him 
in the effort to acquire more satisfactory views ; and partly by the fact that 
he does not feel satisfied even with him, but asks for the publishers of the 
new doctrine. In general, sorcerers found at that time welcome recep- 
tions with Gentiles otherwise very intelligent.* — rov Ady. tov Ooi] Descrip- 
tion of the new doctrine from the standpoint of Luke. 
on viii. 25. 


See, moreover, 


Ver. 8. ’EAöuac] The Arabic name, 


Pee 

„Me, sapiens, Kar’ ££oxyv : magus,‘ 
by which Barjesus chose to be designated, and which he probably adopted 
with a view to glorify himself as the channel of Arabian wisdom by the 
corresponding Arabic name. — 6 wayoc] Interpretation of ’EAiuac, added in 
order to call attention to the significance of the name.® — diacrpéwar ard] a 
well-known pregnant construction, which Valckenaer destroys arbitrarily, 
and in such a way as to weaken the sense, by the conjecture aroorp£ı)aı : 
to pervert and turn aside from the faith. Comp. LXX. Ex. v. 4. 

Ver. 9. LavAoe dé, 6 Kai Mavdoc] se. Aeyöuevoc.* — As Saul, SAND, the longed 
for, is here for the first time and always henceforth’ mentioned under his 
Roman name Paul, but before this, equally without exception, only under 
his Hebrew name, we must assume a set historical purpose in the remark 
6 xai IavdAoc introduced at this particular point, according to which the 
reader is to be reminded of the relation — otherwise presupposed as well 
known — of this name to the historical connection before us. It is there- 
fore the most probable opinion, because the most exempt from arbitrariness, 
that the name Paul was given to the apostle as a memorial, of the conversion of 
Sergius Paulus effected by him.* ‘‘A primo ecclesiae spolio, proconsule 
Sergio Paulo, victoriae suae trophaea retulit, erexitque vexillum, ut Paulus 
diceretur e Saulo.’” The same view is adopted by Valla, Bengel, Ols- 
hausen, Baumgarten, Ewald ; also by Baur,’ according to whom, however, 
legend alone has wished to connect the change of name somehow adopted 


1 Dio Cass. liv. 4. 

2 Dio Cass. liii. 13. 

3 Lucian. Alex. 30, Wetstein in loc. 

4 Comp. Hyde, de relig. vet. Pers. p. 372 f. 

5 Comp. Bornemann, Schol. in. Lue. p. lviii. 

6 Schaefer, ad Bos Hil. p. 213. 

7 Comp. the name Abraham from Gen. xvii. 
5 onwards. 

8 Lange, apost. Zeitalt. p. 368 (comp. Her- 
zog’s Encykl. XI. p. 243), sees in the name 


Paul (the little) a contrast to the name 
Elymas ; for he had in the power of humility 
confronted this master of magie, and had in 
a N.T. character repeated the victory of 
David over Goliath. Against this play of the 
fancy it is decisive, that Ziymas is not termed 
and declared a master of magic, but simply o 
Kayos. (id. 5. 
® Jerome in ep. ad Philem. ; comp. de vir. 
10 J, p. 106, ed. 2. 


248 CHAP. XIII., 10-12. 


by the apostle— which contains a parallel with Peter, Matt. xvi. 16 — with 
an important act of his apostolic life." Either the apostle himself now 
adopted this name, possibly at the request of the proconsul,” or — which at 
least excludes entirely the objection often made to this view, that it is at 
variance with the modesty of the apostle —the Christians,.perhaps first of 
all his companions at the time, so named him in honourable remembrance of that 
memorable conversion effected on his first missionary journey. Kuinoel, indeed, 
thinks that the servants of the proconsul may have called the apostle, 
whose name Saul was unfamiliar (?) to them, Paul ; and that he thenceforth 
was glad to retain this name as a Roman citizen, and on account of his 
intercourse with the Gentiles. But such a purely Gentile origin of the 
name is hardly reconcilable with its universal recognition on the part of the 
Christian body. Since the time of Calvin, Grotius, and others, the opinion 
has become prevalent, that it was only for the sake of intercourse with 
those without, as the ambassador of the faith among the Gentiles, that the 
apostle bore, according to the custom of the time, the Roman name.’ 
Certainly it is to be assumed that he for this reason willingly assented to 
the new name given to him, and willingly left his old name to be forgotten ; 
but the origin of the new name, occurring just here for the first time, is, by 
this view, not in the least explained from the connection of the narrative 
before us. — Heinrichs oddly desires to explain this connection by suggest- 
ing that on this occasion, when Luke had just mentioned Sergius Paulus, 
it had occurred to him that Saul also was called Paul. Such an accident is 
wholly unnatural, as, when Luke wrote, the name Saul was long out of 
use, and that of Paul was universal. The opinion also of Witsius and 
Hackspan, following Augustine, is to be rejected: that the apostle in 
humility, to indicate his spiritual transformation, assigned to himself the 
name, Paulus = exiguus ; as is also that of Schrader,‘ after Drusius and 
Lightfoot, that he received at his circumcision the double name.° — rAecbeic¢ 
rveun. dy.] ‘actu praesente adversus magum acrem,’’ Bengel.® 

Ver. 10. ‘Padiovpyiac] knavery, roguery.” — vie dıaßörov] i.e. a man whose 
condition of mind proceeds from the influence of the devil, the arch-enemy of 
the kingdom of the Messiah.” An indignant contrast to the name Barjesus. 
dıaßöAov is treated as a proper name, therefore without the article.’ — réone 
dikawovvnc] of all, that is right, x. 35. — dtaorp£owv tac ödodc Kup. T. eußelac] 
Wilt thou not cease to pervert the straight—leading directly to the goal—ways 
of the Lord, to give them a perverted direction? i.e. applying this general 
reproach to the present case : Wilt thou, by thy opposition to us, and by 
thy endeavour to turn the proconsul from the faith,'’ persist in so working 
that God's measures,” instead of attaining their aim according to the divine 
intention, may be frustrated? The straight way of God aimed here at the 


1 Comp. Zeller, p. 213. 7 Polyb. xii. 10. 5, iv. 29. 4; Plut. Cat. m. 
2 Ewald. 16. Comp. padıovpynua, xviii. 14. 

3 Comp. also Laurent, newt. Stud. p. 147. 5 Comp. on John viii. 44. 

4D. Ap. Paul. II. p. 14. 91 Pet. v.8; Rev. xx. 2. 

5 Comp. also Wieseler, p. 222 f. 10 Ver. 8. 


6 Comp. iv. 8, 31, vii. 55, xiii. 52. 11 Rom. xi. 33; Rev. xv. 3. 


ELYMAS THE SORCERER. 249 


winning of Sergius for the salvation in Christ, by means of Barnabas and 
Paul; but Elymas set himself in opposition to this, and was engaged in 
diverting from its mark this straight way which God had entered on, so 
that the divinely-desired conversion of Sergius was to remain unrealized. 
De Wette takes it incorrectly : to set forth erroneously the ways in which 
men should walk before God. On diaorp£owv, comp. in fact, Prov. x. 10; 
Isa. lix. 8; Micah iii. 9; and notice that the dsaorpégew x.7.2. was really 
that which the sorcerer strove to do, although without attaining the desired 
success. Observe, also, the thrice repeated emphatic mavréc... ao... . 
maonc, and that Kupiov is not to be referred to Christ, but to God, whom the 
son of the devil resists, as is proved from ver. 11. 

Ver. 11. Xelp Kupiovu] a designation, borrowed according to constant 
usage from the O. T.,' of ‘* God’s hand,’’? and here, indeed, of the punitive 
hand of God, Heb. x. 31.—émi o£] se. iors, is directed against thee. — ion] 
The future is not imperative, but decided prediction.* — un Brérwv 7. MArov] 
self-evident, but ‘‘ auget manifestam sententiam.’’* Tothe blind the sun is 
905 ageyyéc.° —ayxpe Karpov] for a season.* His blindness was not to be perma- 
nent ; the date of its termination is not given, but it must have been in so far 
known by Paul, seeing that this penal consequence would cease with the cause, 
namely, with the withstanding.’ With the announcement of the divine 
punishment is combined, by äyp: kaıpov, the hint of future possible forgive- 
ness. Chrysostom well remarks: 7d äypı Karpov dé ov koAalovroc Hv Td pyua, 
GAn’ Eriorp£oovroc' EL yap KoAdlovtoc NV, dıaravröc Av avTov Eroinoe TupAov.’— 
rapaxpijua bi éxétecev x.t.2.] We are as little to inquire what kind of blind- 
ness occurred, as to suppose, with Heinrichs, that with the sorcerer there 
was already a tendency to blindness, and that this blindness actually now 
set in through fright. The text represents the blindness as a punishment of 
@od without any other cause, announced by Paul as directly cognizant of 
its occurrence. —ayAi¢ kai oxöroc] dimness and darkness, in the form of a 
climax. Sce on äyAüc, only here in the N. T., Duncan.’ — The text assigns 
no reason why the sorcerer was punished with blindness, as, for instance, 
that he might be humbled under the consciousness of his spiritual blind- 
ness.’ We must abstain from any such assertion all the more, that this 
punishment did not befall the similar sorcerer Simon. Rom. xi. 34. 

Ver. 12. ’Eri rn didayq r. Kupiov] For he rightly saw, both in that an-, 
nouncement of punishment by Paul, and in the fate of his sorcerer, some- , 
thing which had a connection with the doctrine of the Lord, that is, with 
the doctrine which Christ caused to be proclaimed by His apostles." Its 
announcer had shown such a marvellous familiarity with the counsel of 
God, and its opponent had suddenly experienced such a severe punishment, 
that he was astonished at the doctrine, with which so evident a divine judg- 


1LXX. Judg. ii. 15; Job xix, 21; 2 Macc. 6 Comp. Luke iv. 18. 

vi. 26; Ecclus. xxxiii. 2. 7 Ver. 8. Comp. on ver. 12. 
2 Luke i. 66, Acts xi. 21. € Comp. Oecumenius. 
3 Comp. V. 9. ® Lex. Hom., ed. Rost, p. 193. 
4 Quinctil. ix. 3. 45. 10 Comp. Baumgarten. 


5 Soph. 0. C. 1546. 11 See on viii. 25. 


250 CHAP. XIII., 13-16. 
ment was connected. Comp. on the connection of the judgment concern- 
ing the doctrine with the miracle beheld, Mark i. 27. 
obviously supposes the reception of baptism.'— Whether the sorcerer after- 
wards became a believer the text does not, indeed, inform us; but the pre- 
sumption of a future conversion is contained in äyxpı kaıpov, ver. 11, and 
therefore the question is to be answered in the affirmative ; for Paul spoke 
that äypı Karpov : Öpıov TH yvouy dıdovc, Oecumenius. The Tübingen criticism 
has indeed condemned the miraculous element in this story and the story 
itself as an invented and exaggerated counterpart of the encounter of Peter 
with Simon Magus, chap. viii.,—a judgment in which the denial of 
miracles in general, and the assumption of dogmatic motives on the part of 
the author, are the controlling presuppositions. ? . 
Vv. 15-15. Having put to the open sea again from Paphos, avayd&vres, as XVI. 
11, and frequently, also with Greek writers,* they came in a northerly direc- 
tion to Perga, the capital of Pamphylia with its famous temple of Diana, * 
where John Mark parted from them’ and returned to Jerusalem, ‚for what rea- 
son is not certain, —apparently from want of courage and boldness, see xv. 38. 
But they, without their former companion (avroi), journeyed inland to the 
north until they came to Antioch in Pisidia, built by Seleucus Nicanor, and 
made by Augustus a Roman colony,® where they visited the synagogue on 
the Sabbath, comp. ver. 5. Their apostleship to the Gentiles had not can- 
celled their obligation, wherever there were Jews, to turn first to these ; 
and to Paul, especially, it could not appear as cancelled in the light of the 
divine order : ’Iovdaiw re mp@rov kai "EAAnvı, Rom. i. 16, clearly known to him, 
of his ardent love to his people, Rom. ix. 1 ff., of his assurance that God 
had not cast them off, Rom. xi., as wellas of his insight into the blessing 
which would arise to the Gentile world even from the rejection of the gospel 
by the Jews, Rom xi. 11: ff. Hence, although apostle of the Gentiles, he 
never excludes the Jews from his mission,’ but expressly includes them,® and 
is wont to begin his labours with them. This we remark against the opinion, 
which is maintained especially by Baur and Zeller, that in the Book of Acts 
the representation of Paul’s missionary procedure is unhistorically modified 
in the interest of Judaism.® — oi repi rov IavAov] denotes the person and 
his companions, —the company of Paul.‘ Now Paul, and no longer Barnabas, 
appears as the principal person. The conspicuous agency of the Gentile 
apostle at once in the conversion of Sergius, and in the humiliation of the 
sorcerer, has decided his superiority. — rc Tcid.] chorographic genitive.” 


The éiorevoev 


1 Comp. iv. 4, xi. 21, xix. 18. 

2 See Baur and Zeller ; comp. also Schneck- 
enburger, p. 53. 

3 Comp. Luke viii. 22. 

4 On the ruins, see Fellows’ Travels in Asia 
Minor, p. 142 tf. 

5 Ewald, p. 456, conjectures that now Titus 
(Gal. ii. 1) had appeared as an apostolic com- 
panion. But how natural it would have been 
for Luke at least here to mention Titus, who 
is never named by him ! 


6 On its ruins, see Hamilton’s Travels in 
Asia Minor, I. p. 431, ff. 

7™Comp. on the contrary, é6’ ooov, Rom. 
> diya 3}. 

8 1 Cor. ix. 20. 

® See, in opposition to it also, Kling in the 
Stud. u. Krit. 1837, p. 302 ff. ; Lekebusch, p. 
S22 Rite 

10 See on John xi. 19, and Valckenaer, p. 
499 f. 

tl Krüger, § 47. 5. 5. 


PAPHOS TO PERGA. 251 
For other designations of this situation of the city, see Bornemann. —xädırav] 
on the seats of the Rabbins, as Wolf, Wetstein, Kuinoel, think. Possibly ; 
but it is possible, also, that they had already, before the commencement of 
the Sabbath, immediately on their arrival, announced themselves as teachers, 
and that this occasioned the request of the president to the strange Rabbins, 
— Tov vöuov k. T. mpog.) namely, in the Parasha and Haphthara for that Sab- 
bath.! That, as Bengel thinks and Kuinoel and Baumgarten approve,? the 
Parasha, Deut. i.—because Paul, in ver. 18, hints at Deut. i. 31—and the cor. 
responding Haphthara, Isa. i., werein the order of the reading, is uncertain, 
even apart from the fact that the modern Parshioth and Haphtharoth were 
fixed only at a later period.” — oi äapxıovväy.] i.e. the college of rulers, con- 
sisting of the apyıovvaywyoc ar! $Eoyi» (DIST UND), and the elders associated 
with him. — &v Üuiv] in animis vestris.—Röyoc mapa. | a discourse of exhor- 
tation, whose contents are an encouragement to the observance and applica- 
tion of the law and the prophets. For: ‘‘ opus fuit expositoribus, qui corda 
eorum afficerent.’’* — Aéyere] On Adyov Atyeıv, see Lobeck, Paral. p. 504. 
Ver. 16. Karao. 7H xeipi] See on xii. 17. —oi doßovu. r. Oedv) is here, as 
the distinction from 'IopanAira:ı requires, the formal designation of the pros- 
elytes of the gate,who, without becoming actual ’Icpayiita by circumcision, 
were yet worshippers of Jehovah, and attenders at the synagogues, where they 
had their particular seats.° Against the unfavourable judgment, which the 
following speech has met with from Schneckenburger, Baur, and Zeller,— 
namely, that it is only an echo of the speeches of Peter and Stephen, a free pro- 
duction of the narrator,—we may urge as a circumstance particularly to be 
observed, that this speech is directed to those who were still non-believers, not, 
like the Epistles of the apostle, to Christians, and accordingly does not find 
in the Epistles any exactly corresponding standard with which to compare 
it ; that, further, nothing un-Pauline occurs either in its contents or form, 
—on the contrary, the Pauline fundamental dogma of justification® forms 
its important concluding main point,” and the Pauline delicacy, prudence, 
and wisdom of teaching are displayed in its entire plan and execution ; that, 
in particular, the historical introduction, although it may not have originated 
without some influence from Stephen’s speech, and the latter may have, by 
the editing, been rendered still more similar, yet presents nothing which 
could not have been spoken by Paul, as the speech of Stephen was known 
to the apostle and must have made an indelible impression on him ; and 
that the use of Ps. xvi.° as a witness for the resurrection of Jesus, was as 
natural to Paul as it was to Peter, as, indeed, to Paul also Christ rose Kara 
räc ypagdc.? The reasons, therefore, adduced against its originality in the 


1 See on Luke iv. 17. 

2 Comp. also Trip, Paulus, p. 194. 

3 Zunz, gotlesdienstl. Vortr. d. Juden. p. 6; 
comp. Hupfeld in the Slud. u. Krit. 1837, p. 
843 f. 

4 Gloss in Babyl. Schabb. f. 30, 2. 
Zunz, p. 332 f. 

5 Comp. vv. 43, 59, xvii. 4, 17, xvi. 14, 
xviii. 7. 


Comp. 


6 vv, 38 ff. do not contain a mere “timid 
allusion” to it, as Zeller thinks, p. 327. 

7 In opposition to Baur’s opinion (I. p. 117, 
ed. 2), that the author, after he had long 
enough made the Apostle Paul speak in a 
Petrine manner, felt that he must now add 
something specifically Pauline / 

8 Comp. Acts ii. 25 fl. 

91 Oor. xv. 4, 


oo 


32 CHAP. XIII., 17-20. 


main, are not sufficient, although, especially amidst our ignorance of the 
document from which the speech thus edited is taken, a more complete as- 
sertion of an originality, which is at all events only indirect, cannot be 
made good.' 

Vy. 17-22. An introduction very wisely prefixed to prepare the minds 
of the Jews, giving the historical basis of the subsequent announcement 
that the Messiah has appeared, and carried down to David, the royal Mes- 
sianie ancestor and type ; the leading thought of which is not the free grace 
of God, but generally the divine Messianic guidance of the people before the 
final appearance of the Messiah Himself. 

Ver. 17. Tov Aaov rovrov ’Iop. (see the critical remarks) refers with rovrov 
to the address dvdpe¢ ’Iop., and with the venerated name ’Iopayi the theo- 
cratic national feeling is appealed to.*— éfeAégaro] He chose for Himself, 
namely, from the mass of mankind, to be His peculiar property. On roüg 
martp. ju., the patriarchs, comp. Rom. ix. 5, xi. 1, 16. In them the peo- 
ple saw the channels and sureties of the divine grace. — öywoev] During 
the sojourn in Egypt, God ezalted the people, making them great in number 
and strength, and especially distinguishing and glorifying them in the 
period directly before the Exodus by miraculous arrangements of Moses. 
The history, which Paul supposes as known, requires this interpretation, 
comp. already Chrysostom, who in önwoev finds the two points: eic mAn7boc 
éxédooav and ra Oaiuara dv avtode yéyove. Others, among whom are Kuinoel, , 
Olshausen, and de Wette, arbitrarily limit t~ooev merely to the increase of 
number, appealing even to Gen. xlviii. 19, Ecclus. xliv. 21, 1. 22, where, 
however, torr, as always,* signifies nothing else than ¢e exalt. The special 
nature of the exaltation is derived purely from the context. Calvin, 
Elsner, and Heinrichs suppose that the deliverance from Egypt is meant. 
But the exaltation, according to the text, occurred év rq mapoıkia Ev yn 
Alyirry,* during their sojourn as strangers in Egypt. Beza and Grotius 
think that it is the iywor of the people by and under Joseph that is 
meant. Erroneously, as iywoev stands in historical connection with the 
following égjyayev. — peta Bpaxiovog vımAov] i.e. without figure: &v rq toybi 
abrov tH neyaAn.” Jehovah is conceived as a leader who advances with up- 
lifted arm, at the head of His people, for their defence against all their 
enemies. ® 

Vv. 18, 19. ‘Qc] might be the as of the protasis, so that kai, ver. 19, 
would then be the also of the apodosis.” But the common rendering 
circiter is simpler and more suitable to the non-periodie style of the entire 
context, as well as corresponding to the sc of ver. 20. — On the accentua- 
tion of recoapaxovraérn, so Lachmann and Tischendorf, see Ellendt.°— 
étpooopdp.] He bore them as their nourisher, as it were in his arms, i.e. he. 
nourished and cherished them. There is here a reminiscence of the LXX. 


1 Comp. the thoughtful judgment of Weiss, 5 LXX. Deut. iv. 37. 

bibl. Theol. p. 220. 6 Comp. Ex. vi. 1,6; Bar. ii. 11. 
2 Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 22. 7So Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 31. (E. T. p. 
3 Comp. particularly Isa. i. 2. 362). 


4 vii. 6, 29; Wisd. xix. 10. 8 Lex. Soph. I. p. 405 f. 


ANTIOCH IN PISIDIA. 253 
Deut. i. 31, according to which passage God bore (8%)) the Israelites in 
the wilderness as a man (W'S) beareth his son. The LXX. has rendered this 
N) by érpopog., whence it is evident, as the image is borrowed from a man, 
that it is based on the derivation from 6 rpogöc and not from 7 rpogöc.! In 
the few other passages where the word is still preserved, women are spoken 
of—namely, 2 Macc. vii. 27, and Macar. Hom. 46. 3, where of a mother it 
is said: dvatayBaver kai repiddawe Kat Tpogogopei Ev noAAj oropyn. But 
as in this place and in Deut. i, 31 the motion of a male rpodd¢ is quite as 
definitely presented ;* usually rpogeic,® it follows that the two references, the 
male and the female, are linguistically justified in an equal degree ; there- 
fore Hesychius explains érpogogdpycev, entirely. apart from sex, by äßpeibev. 
From misapprehension of this, the word £rporoo. was at an early period— 
among the Fathers, Origen already has it—introduced in Deut. l.e. ; he bore 
their manners,‘ because the comparison of God to a nourishing mother or 
nurse, 7 rpopöc, Was regarded as unsuitable,® and following this reading in 
Deut. /.c., érporog. was also adopted in our passage for the same reason.— 
éOvn Erra] see Deut. vii. 1. He destroyed them, i.e. kaderdv.° — karen’npov.] 
He distributed to them for an inheritance.” This compound is foreign to other 
Greek writers, but common in the LXX. in an active and neuter significa- 
tion. The later Greeks have xaraxAnpovyeiv. 

Ver. 20. And afterwards—after this division of the land among the 
Israelites—He gave them, during about 450 years, judges—D'VAV, theocratic 
dictators, national heroes administering law and justice *—wntil Samuel. 
The dative éreo: rerpax. is dative of the time, during which something hap- 
pens, comp. viii. 11.° As Paul here makes the judges to follow after the 
division of the land, it is evident that he overleaps the time which Joshua 
yet lived after the division of the land, or rather includes it in the wera 
ravra, which in so summary a statement is the less strange, as Joshua was 
actually occupied until his death with the consolidation of the new arrange- 
ment of the land, Josh. xxiv. 1-28. But the 450 years are in contradiction with 
1 Kings vi. 1, where the fourth year of Solomon’s reign, the year of the build- 
ing of the temple, is placed 480 !° years after the Exodus from Egypt, which 
leaves only about 300 years for the period of the judges. But, on the other 
hand, the chronology of Josephus, who" reckons 592 years from the Exodus 
out of Egypt to the building of the temple, agrees with Paul in our passage." 
If, namely, we reckon: (1) 40 years as the period of sojourn in tle desert ; 
(2) 25 years as the period of Joshua’s rule ;!% (3) 450 years as the duration 





1So also Cyril, in Oseam, p. 182, in Deut. 
p. 415. [ f. 45, EI. 409. 

2 Comp. Plat. Polit.p 268 A B, Eur. Here 

3 See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 316. 

4Cic. ad Att. xiii. 29, Constitutt. ap. vii. 36, 
Schol. Arist. Ran. 1432. 

5 With the Greeks their fatherland is often 
represented under this image. See Stallb. ad 
Plat. Rep. p. 470 D. 

6 See Thue. i. 4, and Krüger én loc. 

7 LXX. Judg. xi. 24; 1 Kings ii. 8; Isa. xiv. 
2,8; 3 Esdr. viii. 35. 


8 See Niigelsbach in Herzog’s Encykl. XII. 
p. 23 ff. ; Bertheau, Komment. 

9 Comp. Joseph. Antt. i. 3.5: 70 vöwp Nud- 
pats reosapakovra ÖAaıs KATEbEpETO. John ii. 
20 ; Rom. xiv. 25; Winer, p. 205 (E. T. 274). 

10. RX 5.440. 

Tn Antt. viii. 3. 1, comp. x. 8. 5. 

12 In Antt.x x. 10, c. Ap. ii. 2, he reckons 612 
years for the same period, thus 20 years more, 
which comes still nearer to the statement of 
time in our passage ; see below. 

13 Joseph. Antt. v. 1. 29. 


254 CHAP. XIII., 21-25. 


of the judges, to Samuel inclusive, according to our passage ; (4) 40 years 
as the reign of Saul ;* (5) 40 years as the reign of David, 1 Kings ii. 11; 
(6) the first four years of Solomon’s reign, —there results from the Exodus out 
of Egypt to the building of the temple 599 years, with which there remains a 
difference between Paul and Josephus, which is fully covered by öc in the 
text. Accordingly, it appears as the correct view that Paul here follows the 
chronology entirely different from 1 Kings vi. 1, which is also followed by 
Josephus.” This chronology arises from summing up all the numbers men- 
tioned in the Book of Judges,* 410 years, and adding 40 years for Eli; by 
which, however, a total much too high results, as synchronistic statements 
are included in the reckoning. All attempts at reconciling our passage 
with 1 Kings vi. 1 bear the impress of arbitrariness and violence—namely : 
(1) that of Perizonius,‘ and others, that in 1 Kings vi. 1 the years are not 
reckoned, in which the Israelites in the time of the judges were oppressed 
by heathen nations, with which view Wolf agrees ;° (2) Cornelius a Lapide, 
Calovius, Mill, and others supply yevoueva after wevrykovra, post haec, quae 
spatio 450 annorum gesta sunt, so that the terminus a quo is the birth of Isaac, 
in whom God chose the fathers ; from thence to the birth of Jacob are 60 
years, from the birth of Jacob to the entrance into Egypt are 130 years, 
after which the residence in Egypt lasted 210 years, and then from the 
Exodus to the division of Canaan 47 years elapsed, making in all 447 years, 
—accordingly, about 450 years. With the reading of Lachmann, also, we 
must count in accordance with this computation. Comp. Beza. (3) Others 
have had recourse to critical violence. They suppose etther® that in this 
passage tpraxocioe is to be read (r’ for 6), or” that oc éreou rerp. kK. mevrik. 1S 
an addition of a marginal annotator, who ® reckoned thus from the birth of 
Isaac ; or, at least,® that 1 Kings vi. 1 is corrupt ; in which case, however, 
Kuinoel grants that Paul follows a Jewish chronology of his time. — éw¢ 
ZauovnA] i.e. until the end of the series of judges, which had commenced 
with Othniel and closed with Samuel, after which Saul’s reign began. 
See ver. 21. 

Ver. 21. Kaxeidev] and from thence. éxet has only here in the N. T., as 
also in later Greek, a temporal reference, yet so that the time is conceived 
as something in space stretching itself out. So, too, in the passages in 
Bornemann,!° — ér7 teccapak.| ’EBacidevoe ZaovA, ZauovnAov COvtoc, Ern oKTo 
mpoc roic déka’ reAevrnoavroc dé dio Kai eikooı, Joseph. Antt. vi. 14. 9, according 
to the usual text, in which, however, kai eikocı is spurious.!! In the O. T. 
there is no express definition of the duration of Saul’s reign. However, 


1 See on ver. 21. 4 Orig. Aeg. p. 321. 
2 That, nevertheless, the reckoning of 480 5Comp. also Keil in the Dörpi. Beitr. I. 
years in 1 Kings vi. is not on account of our p.311. 
passage to be wholly rejected ; and how far, 6 Luther and Beza. 
on the contrary. it is to be considered as cor- 7 Vitringa and Heinrichs. 
rect. may be seen in Bertheau on Judges, In- 8 Heinrichs. 
trod. p. xvi. ff. ® Voss, Michaelis, Kuinoel. [xili. 28. 
3 iii. 8, 11, 14, 30, iv. 3, v. 31, vi. 1, viii. 28, 10 Schol. in Luc. p. 90 f., but not in Luke 


1X 22..2.12,8,8,531.5,9,,10, 14, 11. 1, xv, 20) 11 See Bertheau on Judges, p. xx. 


PAUL’S DISCOURSE. 255 


the explanation! that ér7 reccapax., which, in fact, contains the duration of 
édwxev „ . . SaoiA, embraces the time of Samuel and Saul together, is to be 
rejected as contrary to the text; and instead of it, there is to be assumed 
a tradition—although improbable in its contents, yet determined by the 
customary number 40—which Paul followed. 

Ver. 22. Meraor. auröv] cannot be explained of the death of Saul,? because 
there is no éx rov (jv * or the like added, or at least directly suggested, from 
the context. The word is rather to be considered as selected and exactly 
corresponding to the known history of Saul, expressing the divine rejection 
recorded in 1 Sam. xv. 16 ff., and deposition of this king from his office, ac- 
cording to the current usus loquendi.* — kai eime uaprvpnoac] for whom He 
also bearing witness has said. « is governed by waprup. ; and on eize uaprup., 
comp. i. 24: mpooev£auevor einov. — elpov Aavid x.t.A.] Ps, 1xxxix. 21) is here 
quite freely blended with 1 Sam. xiii. 14 in the inexact recollection of the 
moment, and formed into one saying of God, as indeed in Ps. Ixxxix. 21 
God is the speaker, but not in Sam. xiii. 14. —eipov] God had sought for 
the kingdom of His people aso rare man like David. — xara tv kapdiav pov] 
i.e. as my heart desires him. This and the following é¢ . . . pov is to be 
left without any more precise limitation—Eckermann, after the older com- 
mentators, supposes that it applies to the government of the people; 
Heinrichs: to the establishment of the theocracy—as the text does not 
furnish such a limitation, and ravra ra 9er. forbids it. On these last words 
Bengel correctly remarks : ‘‘ voluntates, multas, pro negotiorum varietate.’’ ® 

Vv. 23-25. Paul now proceeds to his main point, the announcement of 
the Messiah, the Son of David, as having appeared in Jesus,° whom John 
already preached before His coming. —roirov] with great emphasis, placed 
first and standing apart. — kar’ ixayycdiav| according to promise, an essential 
element for the awakening of faith. Comp. ver. 32. —Hyaye ro ’Iopanı 
. . . Iopanı] He brought’ to the Israelites Jesus as deliverer, Messiah, John 
having previously preached before His coming a baptism of repentance, baptism 
obliging to change of mind, to all the people of Israel. — xpd rpoowron] 297, 
i.e. ante, and that in a temporal sense.* With ric eioödov, according to the 
context, is meant the official, Messianic, emergence among the people. 'The 
Fathers strangely and erroneously refer it to the incarnation.’— oc 62 
emAnpov 6 ’Iwavv. 7. Öpöuov] but when John fulfilled, was in the act of fulfilling,”® 
the course—without figure: the official work incumbent on him.'! Paul 
considers John’s definite pointing to the épyduevoc as that with which the - 
course of the Baptist approached its termination ; the dpduoc of the forerunner 
was actually concluded as regards its idea and purpose, when Jesus Him- 
self publicly appeared. — riva ye ümov. elvar;] is, with Erasmus, Castalio, 


1 Erasmus, Beza, Calovius, Wolf, Morus, ö Comp. Eph. vi. 6; Ps. cii. 7; 2 Macc. i. 3 
Rosenmüller, Heinrichs. 8 vv. 23. 24, 25. 

2 Grotius, de Wette, also my former inter- 7 Zech. iii 8. 
pretation, 8 Gesenius, 7’hes. II. p. 1111. 

33 Macc. vi. 12; Polyb. xxxii. 21. 3. ® See Suicer, T’hes. I. p. 1042. 

4See Dan. ii. 21; 1 Macc. viii. 13; Luke 10 Imperfect ; see Bernhardy, p. 373. 
xvi. 4; also in Greek writers. 11 Comp. xx. 24; 2 Tim. iv. 7; Gal. ii. 2. 


256 CHAP. XIII.. 26-33. 


Calvin, Beza, and many others, to be taken as a question ; not, with Luther, 
Grotius, Kuinoel, Lachmann, Buttmann, as a relative clause: ‘‘ quem me 
esse putatis, non sum,’”’ which, indeed, is linguistically justifiable,’ but 
detracts from the liveliness of the speech.” — ok eiut &y6] namely, the 
Messiah, John i. 20, as self-evidently the expected Person, who was vividly 
before the mind of John and of his hearers.*® 

Ver. 26. In affectionate address (ävdpes adeAdot) earnestly appealing to 
the theocratic consciousness (vioi yev. ’ABp.), Paul now brings home the 
announcement of this salvation, procured through Jesus, 6 Adyo¢ ng our. 
ravrnc,* to the especial interest of the hearers.° — éfaveord27] namely, forth 
from God, ver. 23, x. 36, not from Jerusalem (Bengel). But this iviv.. . 
éZareot. actually took place by the very arrival of Paul and his companions. 

Ver. 27. Täp] Chrysostom leads to the correct interpretation : didwow 
abroic !£ovsiav arooyıofijvar Tov Tov H6vov reroAumkörwv. In accordance with 
the contrast : iviv and of karorkovvrec év ‘Iepovc., the logical sequence is: 
“ To you was the doctrine of salvation sent ; for in Jerusalem the Saviour 
has been rejected ;’’ therefore the preaching must be brought to those out- 
side in the diacropd, such as you are. It does not conflict with this view, 
that at all events the preaching would come to them as Jews ;° since the 
fundamental idea rather is, that, because Jerusalem has despised Christ, 
now in place of the inhabitants of Jerusalem the owtside Jews primarily are 
destined for the reception of salvation. They are to step into the places of 
those as regards this reception of salvation ; and the announcement of salva- 
tion, which was sent to them, was withdrawn from those and their rulers, 
the members of the Sanhedrim, on account of the rejection of the Saviour. 
Thus there is in ydp the idea of divine retribution, exercised against the seat 
of the theocracy, and resulting in good to those outside at a distance ;’ the 
idea of a Nemesis, by which those afar off are preferred to the nearest 
children of the kingdom.* Most of the older commentators are silent on 
yap here. According to Erasmus, it is admonitory, according to Calvin, 
exhortatory to yet greater compliance ; but in this case the special point 
must first be read between the lines. Contrary to the contrast of iuiv and 
oi karoık. ‘Iepove., yap, according to de Wette, is designed to introduce the 
exposition of the idea of cwrnpia ; according to Baumgarten, to convey the hint 
that the informal (?) way, outwardly considered, in which the ?%öyoc had 
reached Antioch, had its reason in the fact that the centre of the theocracy 
had resisted Jesus. — rovrov ayvofoavtec «.r.A.] not having known Him, i.e. 
Jesus, as the self-evident subject, they have also—xai, the also of the corre- 
sponding relation—fulfilled by their sentence, by the condemnation of Jesus, 
the voices of the prophets, which are read every Sabbath day. This fulfilment 
they effected involuntarily in their folly. But the prophecies had to be ful- 


1 Matt. x. 19, al. x Winer, p. 159 (E. T. 210); 4 Comp. on v. 20. 
Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 216 (E. T. 251). 5 Comp. ii. 29, iii. 25 f. 

2 Comp. Jas. iii. 15. 6 Objection of de Wette. 

3Comp. Mark xiii. 5; Luke xxi. 8; John 7 Comp. Tots eis nakpar, ji. 39 ; 
xiii. 19.—On ver. 25 generally, com. Luke iii. 8 Comp. Matt. xxi. 8. 5 


15 f. 


PAUL'S DISCOURSE. 257 


filled, Luke xxiv. 35 f.; 1 Cor. xv. 3. —äyvojoavree] a mild judgment, 
entirely in the spirit of Jesus.' Therefore not too lenient for Paul (Schneck- 
enburger). Luther, Calvin, Grotius, Rosenmüller, Kuinoel, Hackett, and 
others refer ayvojc. not only to rovror, but also to Kai rac d. Tr. mpog.: ** qui 
hune non norant, nec prophetarum oracula . . . intelligebant, eo condem- 
nando effecerunt, ut haec eventu comprobarentur.’? Unnecessarily harsh, 
as xpivavrec and éxAjp. require different supplements. — räc x. m. oüßß. ava- 
yıwor.] a mournful addition ; what infatuation !— xpivavrec] judging, name- 
ly, Jesus. Following Homberg, others have referred it to the gwväc r. rp.: 
“and although judging, correctly valuing the voices of the prophets, they 
nevertheless fulfilled them.’’ Incorrect, because at variance with history, 
and because the resolution of the participle by although is not suggested by 
the context, but rather (rotrov ayvoroavrec) forbidden. 

Vv. 28, 29, Kai] and, without having found, they desired.? — kaderövrec . . . 
EOnxav eig uvnu.| The subject is the inhabitants of Jerusalem and their rulers, 
as in the preceding. Joseph and Nicodemus’ were, in fact, both ; therefore 
Paul, although those were favourably inclined to Jesus, could in this sum- 
mary narrative continue with the same subject, because an exact historical 
discrimination was not here of moment, and the taking down from the 
cross and the placing in the grave were simply the adjuncts of the cruci- 
fixion and the premisses of the corporeal resurrection, 1 Cor. xv. 4.* 

Ver. 30. But God, after such extreme and unrighteous rejection of Jesus 
on the part of those men, what a glorious deed has He done! Thus Paul 
paves the way to announce the highest Messianic onueiov of Jesus,’ the res- 
urrection from the dead ; and that according to its certainty as matter of 
experience, as well as a fulfilment of the prophetic promise. ® 

Vv. 31-33. ‘Eni nu&p. mAciove] for several days, as in Luke iv. 25.7 Instead 
of the argumentative öc, öoye would be still more significant. — roic owvava- 
Baow «.7.A.}~Thus Paul according to this narrative, like Luke in the Gospel, 
follows the tradition which knows only Jewish appearances of the Risen 
One.® — oitivec| quippe qui. — kai nueic K.7.2.] we also, on our part, engaged 
in the same work of preaching as those eye-witnesses, announce unte you 
the promise made to the fathers, that, namely, God has completely fulfilled this, 
etc. —örı rabrmw x.7.2.] contains the particular part of the éxayyedia, the 
promise of the Messiah generally, which is announced. Entirely arbitrarily, 
Heumann, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and others hold that it should be connected : 
evayyeACoueba, ore THY mpöcg Tove TaTépacg yevou. Exayy. 6 Oeöc ExmerA., and that 
rairny is without significance. This very repetition of raéryv has rhetorical 
emphasis.° — exrerinpwre] stronger than the simple verb, ver. 27.'° — roic 


1 Luke xxiii. 34. Comp. oniii. 17; see also ® Comp. ix. 20; see Dissen, ad. Dem. de 
1 Cor. ii. 8. cor. p. 225 ; Bernhardy, p. 283. 
2 On avarpednvar, comp. ii. 23, x. 39. 10 Comp. the passages from Xenoph. in 
3 John xix. 28 f. [viii. 29; Mark xv. 46. Sturz, Herod. v. 35: rv vmdcxeow exmAn- 
4On xaßdeAövres avo T. £VAov, comp. Josh. paca, Plat. Legg. p. 958 B: exmAnpwon To 
5 Comp. Rom. i. 4. xpeos arav, Polyb. i. 67.1: tas éAmidas x. Tas 
6 vv 31, 32-37. &mayyeXias ermAnpovv, 3 Mace. i. 2, 22. Elsc- 
7 Nägelsbach on the Jliad, p. 284, ed. 3. where not in the N. T., but comp. exrAnpwaıs, 


8 See on Matt. xxviii. 10. Comp.i 4. xxi. 26. 


258 CHAP. XIII, 33, 34. 


rexvorc abt. yuiv| for the benefit of their children, descendants, us. The pre- 
fixing of r. rev. avr. has a peculiar emphasis. — avaoryoac ’Inoovv] by this, 
that He raised up Jesus, from the dead. This interpretation’ is necessarily 
required by the connection, which is as follows: (1) The Jews have put to 
death Jesus, though innocent, and buried Him, vv. 28, 29. (2) But God 
has raised Him from the dead, as is certain from His appearance among His 
followers and their testimony, vv. 30, 31. (3) By this resurrection of Jesus, 
God has completely fulfilled to us the promise, etc., vv. 32, 33. (4) But 
the Raised One will, according to God’s asurance, never again die, vv. 34- 
38. This, the only explanation accordant with the context, is confirmed 
by the purposely chosen £xreriypwre, as, indeed, the fulfilment of the 
ptomise begun from the very appearance of Jesus has, although secured 
already essentially, as Hofmann interprets the compound verb, only become 
complete by His resurrection. It has been objected that &x vexpov would 
have to be added to ävaoryoac, as in ver. 34 ; but incorrectly, as the con- 
text makes this addition very superfluous, which yet is purposely added 
in ver. 34, in order that the contrast of unk£rı uEAAovra iroaTpége ei¢ dtapbopav 
might more strongly appear. The textual necessity of our interpretation 
excludes, accordingly, of itself the other explanation,’ according to which 
avasryoac is rendered like DP, prodire jubens, exhibens, iii. 22, vil. 37. This 
rendering would hardly have been adopted and defended, had it not been 
thought necessary to understand Ps. ii. 7 of the appearance of Jesus upon 
earth. — oc . . . yéypaxtai] denotes the avaoryoac ’Incovv as the event which 
took place according to, besides other scriptural passages, the saying in Ps. ii. 
7. —7@ mpotw| Formerly’—though not universally, yet frequently—the first 
Psalm was wont not to be separately numbered, but, as an introduction to 
the Psalter and certainly composed for this object, to be written along with 
the second Psalm, as it is even now found in mss. As, however, such a 
local citation of a passage is found neither in Paul’s writings nor elsewhere 
in the N. T., it must be assumed that Paul did not himself utter the zpérw, 
and that it was not even added by Luke ; but that he took it over from his 
documentary source—into which it had doubtless come, because it was es- 
teemed particularly noteworthy that this prophecy should be found written 
on the very front of the Psalter (F?). — viöc ov ei ov «.t.2.] in the historical 
sense of the Psalm composed by Solomon on his anointing: My son, as 
the theocratic king, thow art; I, no other, have this day begotten thee, made 
thee by thine anointing and installation to be this my son. But, accord- 
ing to the Messianic fulfilment of this divine saying, so far as it has been 
historically fulfilled—it is otherwise in Heb. i. 5—especially by the resurrec- 
tion of the Messiah : My Son, as the Messiah, thou art; I am He who has this 
day, on the day of the resurrection, begotten Thee, installed Thee into this 
divine Sonship by the resurrection, Rom. i. 4,—inasmuch, namely, as the 


1 Erasmus, Luther. Hammond, Clericus, richs, Kuinoel, Olshausen, Hofmann, Weiss- 
Heumann, Morus, de Wette, Baumgarten, ag. u. Erf. p. 113, Schriftbew. I. p. 123 and 
Lange, and others. others. 

2 Castalio, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Calovius, 3 Sce Wetstein. 

Wolf, Bengel, Michaelis, Rusenmüller, Hein- 


DISCOURSE AT ANTIOCH. 259 


resurrection was the actual guarantee, excluding all doubt, of that Sonship of 
Christ. Thus has God by the resurrection, after His humiliation, although 
He was from eternity God's Son, constituted Him the Son of God, He has 
begotten Him. Comp. ii. 36. The expression is not to be illustrated from 
mpwtdorakog Ex. T. vexpov, Col. i. 18 ;! because for denoting the installation 
into the divine Sonship the figure begotten suits admirably ; but as a new 
beginner of life, as Baumgarten explains it. Christ would by the resurrec- 
tion not be begotten, but born. Comp. also Rom. viii. 29. The ciuepor, 
moreover, which to those interpreters, who explain the avacrjo1c generally 
of the bringing forward Jesus, must appear without significance and in- 
cluded in the quotation only for the sake of completeness, as is, however, 
not the case even in Heb. i. 5, forms an essential element of the prophecy in 
its relation to the connection. 

Ver. 34. But that God raised Him from the dead as one who is no more to 
return to corruption, He has thus said. The unkerı péddovta . . . diapbop. is 
the main element whereby the speech advances. Comp. Rom. vi. 9. — eig 
dıagdopav] into corruption, is not, with Kuinoel, after Beza and Piscator, to 
be explained : in locum corruptionis, i.e. in sepulerum, for which there is no 
reason at all, as wnxörı by no means requires the inference that Christ must 
already have been once in the condition of corruption ; for wumkerı refers 
logically to the general idea of dying present in the mind of Paul, which 
he, already thinking on Ps. xvi. 10, expresses by iroorp. ei¢ diag.” Bengel 
aptly says: ‘‘non amplius ibit in mortem, quam alias solet subsequi 
diagfopé.”? The appeal to the LXX., which renders MMY by dvagAopd, is 
equally inadmissible, for the translators actually so understood DNV, and thus 
connected with their d:aofopa no other idea than corruptio.* — ddcw ipiv r. bo. 
A. r. miora] a free quotation of the LXX. Isa. lv. 3, in which Paul, instead 
of Kabjooua uuiv deadyknv aidviov, gives décw ipiv, certainly not designedly, 
because the text of the LXX. represents the appearance of the Messiah as 
something future, as Olshausen thinks ; for the words of the LXX., par- 
ticularly the aiévov, would have been very suitable as probative of our pas- 
sage ; nor yet by a mistake of memory, as the passage about the eternal 
covenant certainly was very accurately known to the apostle ; but because 
he saw the probative force in ra öcıa A. ra mıord, and therefore, in introduc- 
ing those words on which his argument hinged, with his freedom otherwise 
in quotation he regarded it as suflicient only to prefix to them that verb, 
the idea of which is really contained in duadHoouar vuiv diadixnv aidv. I shall 
give unto you the holy things of David, the sure; i.ethe holy blessings con- 
ferred by me on David, the possession of which will be, federally, sure 
and certain. By this is meant the whole Messianic salvation as eter- 
nally enduring, which, in an ideal sense, for future realization by the Son 
of David, the Messiah, belonged as a holy property to David, the Messianic 
ancestor, and was to come to believers through Christ as a sacred inheri- 
tance. The LXX. translates W11 "ION inezactly by ra bora Aavid ; but on this 
very account the literal meaning benefieia is not, against Kuinoel and others, 


1 Avainst Baumgarten. 2 Comp. Winer, p. 574 (E. T. 772). 3 Comp. on ii. 27. 


. 


260 CHAP. XIII, 35-39. 


to be assumed for öoıa. It denotes veneranda, pie observanda.'\—The historical 
meaning of the passage in Isaiah contains a promise of the Messianic times 
alluring the exiles to the appropriation of the theocratic salvation ; but in 
this very Messianic nature of the promise Paul had reason and right to 
recognise the condition of its fulfilment in the eternal remaining-alive of 
the risen Christ, and accordingly to understand the passage as a prophetic 
promise of this eternal remaining-alive ; because through a Messiah liable 
to death, and accordingly to corruption, those holy possessions of David, 
seeing they are to be zord, could not be conferred ; for that purpose His 
life and His government, as the fulfiller of the promises,* must be efernal.* 
As surely as God, according to this prophetic assurance, must bestow the 
dora Aavid ra rıora, so surely Christ, through whom they are bestowed, can- 
not again die. Less accurately Hengstenberg, Christol. II. p. 384. 

Ver. 35. Ad] therefore, namely, because the Messiah, according to ver. 
34, after His resurrection will not again die, but live for ever. — év érépw| 
sc. ars, which is still present to the mind of the speaker from the quo- 
tation in ver. 33. — Aéyec] the subject is necessarily that of eipnkev, ver. 34, 
and so neither David,* nor the Scripture,® but God, although Ps. xvi. 10 
contains David’s words addressed to God. But David is considered as in- 
terpreter of God, who has put the prayer into his mouth,® As to the pas- 
sage quoted, see on ii. 25-27. Calvin correctly says: ‘Quod ejus corpus 
in sepulcro fuit conditum, nihil propterea juris habuit in ipsum corruptio, 
quum illic integrum non secus atque in lecto jacuerit usque ad diem resur- 
rectionis.’’ 

Vv. 36, 37 give the explanation and demonstration (ydp), that in Christ 
raised by God from the dead this language of the Psalm has recéived its ful- 
filment. Comp. ii. 29-31. — idia yevea] Dativus commodi : for his own con- 
temporaries. Others understand it as the dative of time: sua aetate,’ or 
tempore vitae suae.* Very tame and superfluous, and the latter contrary to 
the usus loquendi. idia yevea is added in foresight of the future Messianic 
yeved, Vili. 33, for which the Son of David serves the counsel of God. 
‘‘Davidis partes non extendunt se ultra modulum aetatis vulgaris,’’ Bengel. 
—r17 Tov Ocov BovAn] may either be connected with &xoun$7? or with imnperyoac: *° 
after he for his generation had served the counsel of God. The latter meaning 
is more in keeping with the theocratic standpoint of David and ver. 22.— 
mpocetéOy mpöc Tove Tatépac aitov| was added to his fathers, namely, as regards 
his soul in Sheol, whither his fathers had preceded him. A well-known 
Hebrew expression, Judg. ii. 10 ; Gen. xv. 15, xxv. 8, and Knobel thereon. 

Vv. 38-41. From the previously proved resurrection of Jesus, there fol- 
lows (obv), what is now solemnly announced, yrwordv k.r.A., and does not ap- 
pear as a mere ‘‘ passing hint ’’!! of the Pauline doctrine of justification— 


1 Comp. Bremi, ad Lys. p. 269, Goth. 7 Kuinoel and the older interpreters. 

22 Cor. i. 10. 8 Olshausen. 

3 Comp. Calvin and Hofmann, Weissag. u. ° Erasmus, Castalio, Calvin, Vatablus, and 
Erf. Ii. p. 173 £. others. 

4 Bengel, Heinrichs, and others. 10 Vulgate, Beza, Luther, Wolf, Bengel, 

5 Heumann, Kuinoel, Olshausen, Baumgarten, and others. 


6 Comp. on Matt. xix. 5. 11 Baur, 


FORGIVENESS THROUGH CHRIST, 261 


that precisely through Him, who was thus so uniquely attested by God to 
be the promised Messiah, the Messianic forgiveness and justification are 
offered, vv. 38, 39 ; and from this again follows (oöv, ver. 40) with equal 
naturalness, as the earnest conclusion of the speech, the warning against 
despising this benefit. — Observe that Paul does not enter on the point, that 
the causa meritoria of forgiveness and justification lay in the death on the cross, 
or how it was so; this belonged to a further instruction afterwards ; at this 
time, on the first intimation which he made to those who were still unbe- 
lievers, it might have been offensive and prejudicial. But with his wisdom 
and prudence, according to the connection in which the resurrection of the 
Lord stands with His atoning death,' he has neither prejudiced the truth, 
nor, against Schneckenburger and Baur, exhibited an un-Pauline, an alleged 
Petrine reference of justification to the resurrection of Jesus. 

Vv. 38, 39. Ava tovtov] through this one, i.e. through His being announced to 
you. — kai and TavtTwv . . . Jinarovraı] and that from all things, from which? 
ye were unable to be justified in the law of Moses, every one who believes in this 
One is justified. — ard xavrwr] is pregnant: justified and accordingly freed, 
in respect of the bond of guilt, from all things.” — &v ro véuw and the 
emphatic &v rourw represent the dicawOjva as causally grounded, not in the 
law, but in Christ. But the proposition that one becomes justified in Christ 
by means of faith from all things, z.e. from all sins,* from which one cannot 
obtain justification in the law, is not meant to affirm that already in the law 
there is given a partial attainment of justification and the remainder is at- 
tained in Christ,° which would be un-Pauline and contrary to the whole of the 
N. T. On the contrary, Paul, when laying down that proposition, in itself 
entirely correct, leaves the circumstance, that man finds in the law justifica- 
tion from no kind of sins, still entirely out of account, with great prudence not 
adopting at once an antinomistic attitude, but reserving the particulars of 
the doctrine of justification in its relation to the law for eventually further 
Christian instruction. The proposition is of a general, theoretic nature ; it 
is only the major proposition of the doctrine of justification, from all things 
from which a man is not justified in the law, he is justified in Christ by 
faith ; the minor proposition, but in the law a man can be justified from 
nothing, and the conclusion, therefore only in Christ can all justification be ob- 
tained, are still kept back and reserved for further development. Therefore 
the shift of Neander, I. p. 145, is entirely unnecessary, who * very arbitrarily 
assumes that zdvrwv is designed to denote only the completeness of the re- 
moval of guilt, and that, properly speaking, Paul has had it in view to refer 
the relative to the whole idea of dıramw@rjvaı, but by a kind of Jogical attrac- 
tion has referred it to r@vrov. — We may add that the view,’ according to 
which kai . . . dixacovrar is taken as an independent proposition, as it is also 
by Lachmann, who has erased xai, after A C* x, is also admissible, although 


1 Rom. iv. 25. 5 Schwegler, nachapost. Zeitalt. II. p. 96 f. ; 

2 Sv = ad’ ov see on ver. 2. admitted also by Zeller, p. 299. 

3 Rom. vi. 7; Ecclus. xxvi. 29; Test. XII. ® Comp. also Schneckenburger, p. 131, and 
patr. p. 540. Lekebusch, p. 334. 


4 Comp. before adeots apaprıwr, ? Wolf and others, following the Vulgate. 


262 CHAP. XIIL, 40-47%. 


less in keeping with the flow of the discourse, which connects the negative 
element (ageove duapr.) and the positive correlative to it (d:caoita) with one 
another ; therefore kai is the simple and, not : and indeed. But it is contrary 
to the construction to attach kai avd . . . dıkamwfmyvar to the preceding ; so 
Luther, also Bornemann, who, however, with D, inserts eravora after kai. 
Lastly, that neither, with Luther, is &v rovrw to be connected with riorebwr, 
nor, with Morus, is &v rourw mäc 6 rior. dıkarovraı to be taken as a proposition, 
by itself, is evident from the close reciprocal relation of &v ro véuw and év 
robrw. — On the idea of dırawvodaı, the essence of which here already, by ra¢ 
6 wicrevwv, most definitely emerges as the Pauline justitia jidei, see on Rom. 
117. 

Vv. 40, 41. "Ev roic mpodyraıc] in volumine prophetarum, Luke xxiv. 44; 
John vi. 45. — Hab. i. 5 is here quoted, according to the LXX., which, in- 
stead of 0°33, probably read D'113, from memory with an unimportant 
deviation. In the announcement of the penal judgments to be executed by 
means of the Chaldaeans, which are in Hab. /.c. threatened against the 
degenerate Jewish nation, the apostle sees a divine threatening, the exe- 
cution of which, in the Messianic sense, would ensue at the impending last 
judgment by the punishment befalling the unbelieving Israelites. The 
divine threatening preserves its power and validity even to the end, and 
has then its last and highest fulfilment. This last Messianic judgment of 
God—not the ruin of the Jewish war'—is here the épyov. — aoavichyre] 
vanish, come to nought.* The coming to nought through terror is meant.— 
épyafoua] The present denotes what God was just on the point of doing. 
The éy6 annexed, J, whom you despise, has the emphasis of divine 
authority. —épyov] A rhetorically weighty anaphora, and bence without 
de? — endınyyraı] tells it quite to the end.* 

Vv. 42, 43. After this speech Paul and Barnabas depart, and on their 
going out of the synagogue are requested by those present, the subject of 
mapexaa., to set forth these doctrines again next Sabbath. But after the 
assembly was dismissed (Avfeionc), many even follow them to their lodging, 
etc.— éfidvtwv dé aurov] They consequently departed, as is indisputably 
evident from ver. 43, before the formal dismissal of the synagogue. 
Olshausen, indeed, thinks that the é£:évr. air. did not historically precede the 
Aufeions ns cvvaywy., but is only anticipated as the chief point of the narrative, 
giving rise to the request to appear again. But this is nothing but an 
arbitrary device, which would impute to Luke the greatest clumsiness in his 
representation.— ei¢ rd uera&v caBBarov] on the next following Sabbath. Instead 
of erasv, D has what is correct as a gloss: é¢y¢. In the N. T. this meaning 
is without further example, for Rom. ii. 15 1s not a case in point. From the 
apostolic Fathers: Barnabas 13 ; Clemens, ad Cor. I. 44. For the few, but 


1 Wetstein and others. 3 Comp. Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 341 (ET. 
2 Comp. Philostr. Jmag. i. 26: obx ws amo- 398). Krüger, § lix. 1. 3 f. 
AowTo, add’ ws abavıodeiev. Jas. iv. 14. So 4 Comp. xy. 3; Job xii.3; Ecclus. xxxix. 


very often in classical writers. See Toup, 12, xliii. 31, xliv. 8; Joseph. Anté. v, 8. 33 
Em in Suid. I. p. 92. Bell. v. 13.7. 


LABORS IN ANTIOCH. 263 


quite certain examples from the other later Greek,' see Krebs.” Others 
— Camerarius, Calvin, Beza, Erasmus Schmid, Rosenmüller, Sepp, and others 
— render : ‘‘ diebus sabbatha intercedentibus,’’ by which, following the Recepta 
(see the critical remarks), those making the request are regarded as Gentiles, 
who would have desired a week-day. Comp. Luther: ‘ between Sabbaths.”” We 
should then have to explain oaßßarov as week,* that is : on the intervening week, 
so that it would require no conjectural emendation.* But the evident con- 
nection in which ver. 42 stands with ver. 44 gives the necessary and 
authentic explanation: ro éyouévm oaßßaro. — Tr. ceBou. mpoonA.] the (God) 
worshipping proselytes. This designation of the proselytes occurs only here ; 
elsewhere, merely mpooyAvro:,° or merely oeßöuevo: With © and without? Oeov. 
Yet there is here no pleonasm ; but oeßou. is added, because they were 
just coming from the worship, as constant partakers in which they were 
worshipping proselytes. —oizwec| applies to Paul and Barnabas, who (quippe 
qui) made moving representations (éreov) to those following them to con- 
tinue in the grace of God, which by this first preaching of the gospel had 
been imparted to them, because the apostles by the very following of the 
people, and certainly also by their expressions, might be convinced that the 
yapic tov Ocov had found an entrance into their souls.— zpoctadovvrec] speak- 
ing to them ; xxviii. 20.° 

Vy. 44,45. To dé &xoutvo oaßß.] but on the foliowing Sabbath.’ It is 
in itself, moreover, highly probable that the two apostles were not 
idle during the week, but continued their labours in private circles. — 
cuviy0n] As it was Sabbath,’ this assembly, at which also the Gentiles 
of the city were present, oxedov raca 7 méAcc, and see ver. 48, took 
place certainly in and near the synagogue, not, as Heinrichs supposes, 
“ante diversorium apostolorum.’’ The whole city = rävrec vi roAiraı ; see 
Valckenaer, ad Phoen. 93%. — rovc öyAovc] which consisted in great part of 
Gentiles, whose admission to the preaching of the Messiah now stirred up 
the angry zeal ({jA0c) of Israelitish pride ; observe that here the "Iovdaior 
alone without the proselytes are named. — ävrıA&yovreg is neither superfluous 
nor a Hebraism," but joined with «ai BAaceyu., it specifies emphatically the 
mode of avréAeyov, namely, its hostile and spiteful form : they contradicted, 
contradicting and at the same time blaspheming the apostle and his doctrine.” 

Vv. 46, 47. ‘Hv dvayxaiov| namely, according to the counsel of God '* and 
our apostolic duty. —oi« agiove kpivere x.7.2.] This judgment of their un- 
worthiness they, in point of fact, pronounced upon themselves by their 
zealous contradicting and blaspheming. — idoé| ‘t ingens articulus temporis 
magna revolutio,’’ Bengel. As to the singular, comp. on Matt. x. 16. — 


1 Plut. Inst. Lac. 42, de disci. amici et adul. 6 xvi. 14, xviii. 6. 
22; Joseph. c. Ap. i. 21; Bell. v. 4. 2,—but 7 xiii. 50, xvii. 4, 17. (19; Wisd. xiii. 17. 
not Bell. 11. 11. 4. 8 Lucian, Nigr. 7. 11, 18; Theophr. Char. 
2 Obss. p. 220; Kypke, II. p. 67 f. ; Wyttenb. ® Comp. xx. 15, xxi. 26; Luke xiii. 33 ; often 
ad. Plut. Mor. p.177 C. Comp. Otto,ad The- also in classical writers. 
oph. Ant. 1. 8, p. 26 ff. 10 See also ver. 42. 
3 Mark xvi. 9: Luke xviii. 12 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 2. 11 Ewald, Zehrb. § 2800. [Judg. iv. 24. 
4 Grotius : caBBatwv. 12 See Lobeck. Paralip. p. 532 f. Comp. 


5 ii. 10, vi. 5; Matt. xiii. 21. 13 See on ver. 14. 


264 CHAP. XIII, 48-52. 

obtw yap évréradrat x.r.i.] a proof that the orpesöueda eis ra éOvn occurred not 
arbitrarily, but in the service of the divine counsel. Isa. xlix. 6, according 
to the LXX., with slight deviation, referring to the servant of God, is by 
Paul and Barnabas, according to the Messianic fulfilment which this divine 
word was to receive, recognised and asserted as &vroAy for the apostolic 
office ; for by means of this office it was to be brought about that the 
Messiah (ce) would actually become the light of the Gentiles,’ for which, 
according to this oracle, God has destined Him. — rov eivai ce x.t.A.] the 
final purpose : in order that thou mayest be, etc. 

Vv. 48, 49. Tov Adyov r. Kupiov}] see on vili. 25. — 000: 70av tetaypévor eig 
Zoyv aléviov| as many of them as were ordained to eternal, Messianic, life. 
Luke regards, in accordance with the Pauline conception,* the believing of 
those Gentiles as ensuing in conformity to their destination, ordered by 
God already, namely, from of old, to partake of eternal life. Not all in 
general became believers, but all those who were divinely destined to this 
Coy ; and not the rest. Chrysostom correctly remarks: dgupiopévor ro Bew. 
The raéic of God in regard to those who became believers was in accordance 
with His rpdyvworc, by meaus of which He foreknew them as credituros ; 
but the divine raé:¢ was realized by the divine «Ajove effectual for faith, 
Rom. viii. 28-80—of which Paul, with his preaching, was here the instru- 
ment. It was dogmatic arbitrariness which converted our passage into a 
proof of the decretum absolutum.* For Luke leaves entirely out of account 
the relation of ‘‘ being ordained ”’ to free self-determination ; the object of 
his remark is not to teach a doctrine, but to indicate a historical sequence. 
Indeed, the evident relation, in which this notice stands to the apostle’s 
own words, &reıd) . . . Loc, ver. 46, rather testifies against the conception 
of the absolute decree, and for the idea, according to which the destination 
of God does not exclude, comp. ii. 41, individual freedom, oc ov kar’ 
avaykyv, Chrysostom ; although, if the matter is contemplated only from 
one of those two sides which it necessarily has, the other point of view, 
owing to the imperfection of man’s mode of looking at it, cannot receive 
proportionately its due, but appears to be logically nullified. See, more 
particularly, the remark subjoined to Rom. ix. 33. Accordingly, it is not 
to be explained of the actus paedagogieos,* of the praesentem gratiae opera- 
tionem per evangelium,® of the drawing of the Father, John vi. 44, 37, ete., 
with the Lutheran dogmatic writers; but the literal meaning is to be ad- 
hered to, namely, the divine destination to eternal salvation : éero aurovc 6 
Oed¢ eic mepımoinow owunpiac, 1 Thess. v. 9. Morus, Rosenmiiller, Kuinoel, 
and others, with rationalizing arbitrariness, import the sense: ‘‘ quibus, 
dum fidem doctrinae habebant, certa erat vita beata et aeterna,” by which 


1 Luke ii. 32, etc. Gi. 13, a2. 
2 Rom. ix.; Eph. i. 4,5, 11, iii. 11; 2 Thess. 
3In which case Beza, for example, pro- 
ceeds with logical self-deception : “ Ergo vel 
non omnes erant vitae aeternae destinati, vel 
omnes crediderunt.’’ Rather it is to be said : 
“ Omnes erant vitae aeternae destinati, sed 


eredituwri.” This excludes from the divine 
taéts Of salvation those who reject the faith 
through their own fault. See Beza and Calvin 
in loc., and Canon. Dordrac. p. 205, ed. Au- 
gusti. 

4 Calovius. 

5 Bengel. 


EXPULSION FROM ANTIOCH. 265 


the meaning of the word rerayu£vo: is entirely explained away. Others take 
joav rerayu. in the middle sense, quotquot se ordinaverant ad vitam aeternam, 
as Grotius, Krebs, Loesner, and others,’ in which case rerayı. is often under- 
stood in its military sense (qui ordines servant) >? *“qui de agmine et classe 
erant sperantium vel contendentium ad vitam aeternam.’’® But it is 
against the middle rendering of rerayu.,* that it is just seized on in order 
to evade an unpleasant meaning ; and for the sensus militaris of rerayı. no 
ground at all is afforded by the context, which, on the contrary, suggests 
nothing else than the simple signification ‘‘ ordained’ for rerayu., and the 
sense of the aim for eic Conv aidv. Others join eic [wmv aidvov to éxiorevoar, 
so that they understand rerayı. either in the usual and correct sense 
destinati,® or quotquot tempus constituerant,® or congregati,’ in spite of the 
simple order of the words and of the expression miorevew eic Cwiv aidviov 
being without example; for in 1 Tim. i. 16 eic defines the aim. Among 
the Rabbins, also, the idea and expression ‘‘ordinati (0°13) ad vitam 
Futuri saeeuli,’’ as well as the opposite : ‘‘ ordinati ad Gehennam,’’ are very 
common. See the many passages in Wetstein. But Wetstein himself 
interprets in an entirely erroneous manner: that they were on account of 
their faith ordained to eternal life. The faith, foreseen by God, is subse- 
quent, not previous to the ordination ; by the faith of those concerned their 
divine ra&ıc becomes manifest and recognised. See Rom. viii. 30, x. 14; 
Eph. i. 11, 13, al. 

Ver. 50. Iapörpvvav 7. oeß. yuv. Tr. evox.] they stirred wp® the female pros- 
elytes, of genteel rank.’ Heinrichs interprets oeß. otherwise: ‘‘religiosas 
zeloque servandorum rituum ethnicorum ferventes.’? Against this may be 
urged the stated use of oe3. in this narrative, vv. 16, 43, as well as the 
greater suitableness of the thing itself, that the crafty Jews should choose 
as the instruments of their hatred the female proselytes, who were suf- 
ficiently zealous for the honour of their adopted religion to bring about, 
by influencing their Gentile husbands, the intended expulsion of the apostles. 

Ver. 51. ’Ekrwa£. r. xoviopr.] as a sign of the greatest contempt.’°— éx’ aurovg] 
against them, is to be understood either as denoting the direction of the 
movement of the feet in shaking off the dust, or, more significantly, in the 
sense of the direction, frame of mind, in which the action took place. 
Comp. Luke ix. 5. —’Ixévov] belonging at an earlier period to Phrygia," 
but at this time the capital of Lycaonia,'” and even yet,'® an important city. 


ı Hofmann’s view, Schriftbew. I. p. 288, 4 Comp. on xx. 13. 
amounts to the same thing: “who, directed 5 So Heinrichs. 
unto eternal life, were in a disposition of mind 6 Markland. 
corresponding to the offer of it.” The com- 7 Knatchbull. 
parison of 1 Cor. xvi. 15 does not suit. Lange, 8 Pind. Ol. iii. 88; Lucian, Tow. 35. 
II. p. 173, in a similar manner evades the ° See xvii. 12, and on Mark xv. 43. 
meaning of the words: ‘those who under 10 Comp. xviii. 6, and see on Matt. x. 14. 
God’s ordination were at that time ripe for 11 Xen. Anad. i. 2. 19. 
faith... Comp. already Brestchneider, ‘ dis- 12 Strabo, xii. p. 568 ; Cic. ad Div. xv. 4; 
positi."—that is to say, ‘‘apti facti oratione Plin. N. H. vi 25. 
Pauli.” 13 Konieh or Koniyah, see Ainsworth’s 
2 See Maji Odss. III. p. 81 ff. Travels in the Track of the Ten Thousand 


3 Mede in Wulf, Greeks. 


266 CHAP, XIII. —NOTES. 


Ammian. Marc. xiv. 2, reckons it to belong to the neighbouring Pisidia, 
in opposition to the above witnesses, —an error easily committed. In 
Iconium the legend makes 7hecla be converted by Paul. — From the 
Pisidian Antioch they did not move farther forward, but turned south- 
eastward, in order (xiv. 26) at a later period to return by ship to the Syrian 
Antioch. 

Ver. 52. What a simple and significant contrast of the effect produced 
by the gospel, in spite of the expulsion of its preachers, in the minds of 
those newly converted! They were filled with joy, in the consciousness of 
their Christian happiness, and with the Holy Spirit! WUWdoc yap diWacKddov 
rappnolav our Eykömreı, GAAG mpolvudrepoy Tovei TOV wabyTHyv, as Chrysostom here 
says (G?). 


Notres BY AMERICAN EDITOR. 


(c?) Special documentary source. V. 1. 


While there is nothing in the supposition of our author that the 13th and 
14th chapters are a separate document, revised by Luke, inconsistent with the 
authenticity and authority of the record, yet there does not seem to be any ne- 
cessity, from the style or the contents of the chapters, for any such supposi- 
tion. Gloag in reference to this says: ‘‘ The narrative is pervaded throughout 
with Luke’s peculiar style, and is not so unconnected with the preceding his- 
tory as is asserted.” Paul and Barnabas had returned to Antioch, and other 
distinguished teachers were assembled there, so that, as Meyer happily re- 
marks, the mother church of the Gentiles became a seminary of missionaries. 

Hitherto Luke has given an account of the progress of the gospel generally. 
Henceforth he treats almost exclusively of Saul—now and henceforth called 
Paul—his missionary labors and journeys, and the leading events of his life. 
The missionary character of the church is now brought prominently into view. 
The first two acts of the church at Antioch are characteristic of the gospel, 
and exemplify the unity of the Christian church. They first sent alms to 
the poor Jews in Jerusalem, and next sent the gospel far and wide to the igno, 
rant Gentiles. This conduct furnishes a pattern for all churches to-day. 


(D?) Prophets and teachers. Ys. 1, 2. 


These office-bearers of the early church are frequently referred to in the 
Acts and in the Epistles of Paul. (1 Cor. xii. 28, and Eph. iv. 11.) The proph- 
ets were an order of men endowed with the Spirit, and recognized by the church 
as next to the apostles in dignity and authority, and superior to the teachers. 
They, when inspired by the Spirit, addressed the people in an exalted and im- 
passioned state of mind—their conscious intelligence being informed by the 
Holy Spirit. They were only occasionally under this influence, and some- 
times, as in the present instance, they foretold future events. The teachers 
were publicly appointed by the church to the work of instruction, and, under 
the guidance of the Holy Spirit, using their own judgment, after due medita- 
tion, furnished instruction for the edification of others. A prophet might also 
be a teacher, as the higher gift usually included the lower; but the teacher 


NOTES. 267 


would not assume the function of the prophet. The mention of prophets and 
teachers implies that the first Gentile church was large and flourishing. Some 
of the prophets came from Jerusalem to minister to the Gentiles. “The 
prophets in the New Testament stood to the early churches nearly in the same 
relation as do our printed Bibles to our modern churches. They spoke by au- 
thority and without error, and gave to their audience such details as occur in 
the Gospels, and such illustrations and precepts as are found in the Epistles. 
They were the ‘men of their counsel ’—present oracles, whose lips keep 
knowledge.” (Kadie.) 


(8?) John as an attendant. YV. 5. 


The two friends took with them John, surnamed Mark, the nephew of Bar- 
nabas, and the author of the second gospel. He is styled in the narrative 
“their minister ;” but it is impossible to determine with precision the kind of 
service he was expected to render them. Some suppose that he was simply a 
personal attendant, as Elisha was upon Elijah, or Gehazi upon Elisha ; others 
believe that he was an assistant in their public duties—such as preaching and 
the administration of the ordinance of baptism.” (Taylor.) While it may be 
readily imagined that Mark, as the younger man, would perform any kind of 
service which would contribute to the personal comfort of his relative and his 
distinguished companion, doubtless his functions were mainly of a spiritual 
character. Soon, however, he left such noble companionship, and seriously 
offended Paul by abandoning the arduous and perilous mission. His motives 
for doing this were probably various, though cowardice did not necessarily con- 
stitute one of them. Having passed through his mother’s native isle, he prob- 
ably felt a strong desire to visit her—or still more probably, being strongly 
attached to Peter, through whose instrumentality he was converted, as Peter 
affectionately calls him Marcus my son, and sympathizing more strongly with 
his work than that of Paul, he may have returned to join him. Be this as it 
may, Barnabas never lost confidence in him, and he was also at last reconciled 
to Paul, and was with him when a prisoner in Rome (Col. iv. 10 ; Philemon, 
24). 


(F?) Second psalm. YV. 33. 


“The majority of mss. are in favor of devrépw ; but critics have in general 
preferred the reading rporw, as being more difficult and adverted to by the 
Fathers. It is accounted for on the supposition that our first psalm was not 
numbered, but was composed as an introduction to the psalter ; and that the 
second psalm was properly the first. Insome Hebrew mss. this order occurs.”’ 
(Gloag.) Some refer the words quoted to the incarnation of Christ, but the 
reference clearly is, as our author shows, to his resurrection. Declared, by his 
resurrection, to be the Son of God with power, it was the public inauguration 
of his Sonship, a manifestation of his divinity (Rom. i. 4). 


(6?) Paul’s sermon. V. 41. 


Of this first recorded discourse of Paul very different judgments have been 
formed. Some suppose it to be unhistorical—a mere imitation and repetition 
of the speech of Peter. Another says it is but the echo of the speeches of 


268 CHAP. XIII.—NOTES. 


Peter and Stephen. The similarity between the discourses is just what might 
be expected, from the two apostles speaking on the same subject to similar 
audiences. Farther, says Gloag, there is nothing un-Pauline either in the form 
or the contents of the discourse. Neander says: “It is a specimen of the pe- 
culiar wisdom and skill of the great apostle in the management of men’s dispo- 
sitions, and of his peculiar antithetical mode of developing Christian truth.” 
The discourse is regularly constructed, and may be divided into four parts— 
the historical, the apologetic, the doctrinal, and the practical. In the dis- 
course the preacher wins the attention of his audience by giving a sketch of 
the history of their forefathers. Then he proves the Messiahship of Jesus from 
the testimony of John, from the fulfilment of prophecy in him, and from his 
resurrection from the dead. Next he proclaims the forgiveness of sins through 
faith in this crucified and risen Messiah, announcing distinctly the doctrine 
which he discusses at so great length in his Epistles—justification through 
faith in Christ. Justification, as taught by Paul, means deliverance from con- 
demnation, the claim of the law for punishment. Dr. Taylor gives in a note 
a striking and curious illustration of the use of the word justified in this sense, 
taken from Scott’s ‘‘ Waverley,”—when Evan Maccombich, pleading for his 
master, says to the judge “that ony six o’ the very best o’ his clan will be 
willing to be justified in his stead.” Here the word means hanged ; a criminal 
being held to be set right with the law when he had suffered its penalty. The 
conclusion of the discourse is an earnest warning against rejecting Christ, lest 
something worse than the evils predicted by Habakkuk should come upon 
them. Startled and surprised by this solemn conclusion, they besought the 
apostles, as they left the synagogue, to come and preach again on the next 
Sabbath. Even after they had withdrawn, many followed and had an inter- 
view with the apostles. 

During the week the excitement was great; nor were the apostles either 
idle or silent. And so next Sabbath almost the whole city came together to 
hear the word. But when the Jews saw the multitudes of the Gentiles listen- 
ing to the truth and receiving it, they be¢ame enraged, and contradicted and 
insulted the apostles. On the other hand, the Gentiles, hearing that Jesus the 
crucified was set for a light and salvation to them, were glad and glorified God ; 
and even though the apostles were driven off by the instigation of the Jews, 
the disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Ghost. 


CRITICAL REMARKS. 269 


CHAPTER XIV. 


Ver. 2. areoivres] ABCN, min. have dreOjoavres, which Lachm. Tisch. 
Born. have adopted ; and rightly, partly on account of the preponderating 
authority (D, however, does not here concur, as it has an entirely different 
reading), and partly because areıdoövres most directly presented itself to the 
mechanical scribes as a contrast to those who had become believers. If they 
had conformed themselves to rioreücaı, ver. 1, they would have written 
arıormoavres. — Ver. 3. Before dıdövr: Elz. has kai, against decisive evidence. 
— Ver. 8. After airod Elz, has izapyor, against greatly preponderating evidence. 
Added from iii. 2 as an unnecessary completion. — repırerarjkeı] So (not 
repienen. aS Elz.) D HE GH, min. Chrys. Lachm. and Tisch. have repıerürnoen, 
after ABCN, min. But the regular preference, which in relative sentences 
the Greeks give to the aorist over the pluperfect, here easily supplanted the 
latter. — Ver. 9. jxove] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read jxovcer, after ADE GHRX, 
min, Chrys. Theoph. An alteration, as the narrative continues in the aorist, 
and the intentional selection of the imperfect here was not understood. — Ver. 
10. Lachm. Tisch. Scholz (Born. avnAaro, after D) have #Aato. But Elz. has 
HAAero, against decisive evidence. The aorist yielded to the imperfect on ac- 
count of mepiemareı.— Ver. 12. per] is, after A B C* D8, rightly erased by 
Lachm. Tisch. Born. as a customary insertion. — Ver. 13. After 76?.ews Elz. has 
abrov. A current addition, condemned by the witnesses. — Ver. 14. &$ernydnoav] 
Elz. has eicer7d., against decisive evidence, The less the reference of é£— was 
understood, the more easily would the better known eis be inserted, corre- 
sponding to «is röv öyAov. — Ver. 17. kairorye] Others: kaiye (so DE, Born.). 
Others : kairoı (so A B C* 8**, Lachm.). With this diversity kairoı, and also yé, 
are to be considered as certainly and predominantly attested ; and therefore 
Kairotye, With C*** GH N*, min. Chrys. Theoph. Oec., is to be retained. Be- 
side kai sometimes the one particle and sometimes the other was omitted, as is 
also the case in xvii. 27. — dyafovpydv] so to be read, with A B C8, min. Ath. 
Recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. Tisch. But Elz. Scholz, 
Born. have aya$oroav, which, as the more usual word, was inserted. — üwiv 

. tuov] Elz. has juiv . . . nuov, against very important witnesses. The 
alteration arose, because the sentence had become a commonplace. — After ver. 
18, CD E, min. vss. read dıarpıdovrwv aizav k. dıdaokövrwv. So Born. with dé 
after dıarp., and attaching it to what follows. An interpolation, by way of 
smoothing the transition from ver. 18 to its contrast in ver. 19, variously en- 
riched by different insertions. — Ver. 19. vowioavres] Lachm. Tisch. and Born. 
have vouilovres, after A B DS, min. The Recepta arose mechanically from the 
context, — reßvavaı] Lachm. Tisch. read redrnzrevaı, after AB C N, min, Cor- 
rectly, as the contracted form was the more usual. — Ver. 28. After duerpıBov dé 
Elz. has ?xei, which has been, after A B C D 8, min. and several vss., erased or 
suspected since the time of Griesb. Insertion for the sake of more precise 
definition. 


270 CHAP. XIv., 1-11. 


(m?) Vy. 1, 2. Kara 76 airé] at the same time, simul (Vulg.), öuoö, Hesych." 
— 'EAAjver] see on xi. 20. Comp. xviii. 4, 6. Yet here those Gentiles only 
are meant who were in connection with Judaism as proselytes of the gate, comp. 
xiii. 43, and thus had not by circumcision laid aside their Greek nationality. 
This limitation is required by the context ; for they are present in the syn- 
agogue, and in ver. 2 the 07 are distinguished from them, so that they 
occupy a middle place between the é@y and the "Ioadaior. — oitwe] in such a 
manner, so effectively. — ore] refers to the preceding oöroc, as in John iii. 
16.2 — areıßyoavres (see the critical remarks), having refused obedience, by 
unbelief. — éxdx.] they made evil-affected, put into a bad frame of mind, £.e. 
ad iracundiam concitaverunt (Vulg.), like the German phrase, ‘‘ sie machten 
bös.”’ This meaning, not in use with Greek writers, nor elsewhere in the N. 
T. or in the LXX. (Ps. cvi. 32?) and Apocr., occurs in Joseph. Antt. xvi. 
1. 2, 7. 3, 8. 6. — xara rov adedg.] refers to éxqy. x. éxdx. conjointly. Both 
were hostilely directed against the Christians, 

Vv. 3, 4. Oöv represents vv. 3 and 4 as a consequence of vv. 1 and 2. 
“In consequence of that approval (ver. 1) and this hostility (ver. 2), they 
spent indeed (uév) a considerable time in free-spoken preaching (ver. 3), 
but (dé) there arose a division among the multitude’? (ver. 4). — im ro 
Kvpiw] states on what their bold teaching rested—had its stay and support.* 
Hence as regards sense: freti Domino. Elsewhere in the N. T. with &v. 
Küpısce may as well be Jesus* as God ;° the mode of conception of the apostolic 
church admits both the former, Mark xvi. 20, and the latter. The latter, 
however, is preponderantly supported partly by Acts xx. 32, where rc 
xäpıroc aurov is to be referred to God, and partly by iv. 29, 30, where dıdövrı 
onueia K.T.A. likewise points to God. Comp. Heb. ii. 4. —76 uaprvpovvri .. . 
avtav| who gave practically confirmatory testimony® to the word of His grace (to 
the gospel, xx. 24), in granting that signs and wonders should be done by their 
hands. The second participle dıssvrı, added without copula, denotes the 
Form, in which the paprvpeiv was presented. — öoyio07] comp. John vii. 43. 
“* Seinditur incertum studia in contraria vulgus.’’’ Examples in Wetstein. 
— kai] and indeed, 

(1?) Vv. 5-7. 'Opu7] impetus (Vulg.), but not exactly in the sense of an 
assault,* nor yet a plot.° The former meaning, according to the context, 
expresses too much ; the latter is not sanctioned by linguistic usage, even 
in Jas. iii. 4. It denotes a strong pressure, a pushing and thronging.‘ — ovv 
roic üpxovomw abrov] joins on closely to ’Iovdaiwv, whose rulers of the syna- 
gogue and elders are meant. Comp. Phil. i. 1. On ifpica, comp. Luke 
xvill. 32; 1 Thess. ji. 2; Lucian, Soloec. 10."— ovvıdövrec! Comp. on xii. 12. 


1Comp.1 Sam. xxxi. 6, and examples in 7 Virg. Aen. ii. 39. 
Kypke, II. p. 69 f.; Schaefer, ad Bos. Ell. p. ® Luther, comp. Castalio, Calvin, and others, 
210. ® Kuinoel, de Wette, and others. 
2 Often soin Greek writers, e.g. Xen. Mem. 10 Comp. Herod. vii. 18: eet datpovin tis yive- 
i, 2.1; Sturz, Lex. LV. p. 628. tat öpun, Plat. Phil. p.35 D: Wuxns évpracav 
3 See Bernhardy, p. 250. THY TE Opunv Kal emcOvacay, Dem. 309. 4: eis 
4 Heinrichs, Olshausen. opunv tou Ta SéovTa moray mpotpéWar, Xen, 
5 Grotius, Morus, Kuinoel. Mem. iv. 4. 2; Jas. iii. 4; 3 Macc. i. 23, iv. 3. 


® Comp. x. 43, xiii. 22, xv. 8. 11 mroı mAnyals 7 Seapmots 7 Kal GAAw TPOTW, 


EVENTS AT ICONIUM. 271 


It had become known to them, what was at work against them. — Atotpa, 
sometimes used as feminine singular, and sometimes as neuter plural, as 
in ver. 8, see Grotius, and Aép37, two cities of Lycaonia (3°), to the north of 
Taurus, and lying in a southeastern direction from Iconium. Ptol. v. 4 
reckons the former to belong to the neighbouring Isauria ; but Plin. v. 32 
confirms the statement of our passage. On their ruins, see Hamilton’s 
Travels in Asia Minor, II. pp. 301 f., 307 f. ; Hackett, p. 228. 

Vv. 8-10.' ’Exa0yro] he sat, because he was lame. Perhaps he begged, 
comp. John ix. 8, like the lame man in chap. ili. — repırer.) Pluperfect 
without augment.” Observe, moreover, the earnest circumstantiality of the 
narrative. — jxove] The imperfect denotes his persevering listening.— iddv] 
Paul saw in the whole bearing of the man closely scanned by him, in 
his look, gestures, play of features, his confidence of being saved, i.e. 
healed. This confidence was excited by listening to the discourse of the 
apostle ; by which Paul appeared to him as a holy man of superior powers. 
Bengel aptly says: ‘‘dum claudus verbum audit, vim sentit in anima, unde 
intus movetur, ut ad corpus concludat.’’ — rov cwfjva] This genitive of the 
object depends directly on xiori.* — peyddy tH gory] thus, with the sey. 
predicatively prefixed only here and in xxvi. 24.‘— dpc] ita ut erectus stes.° 
— nAaro x. repieräreı) Observe the exchange of the aorist and imperfect : 
he sprang up, made a leap, and walked. Otherwise in iii. 8. 

Ver. 11. Avkaovıori] Chrysostom has finely grasped the object of this re- 
mark : ouk yy TovTO ovderw dmAov, TH yap oikeia dwvn EGOéyyovTO Afyovrec, STE ot 
Ocot K.T.A. The more surprised and astonished 
the people were, the more natural was it for them to express themselves in 
their native dialect, although Zeller reckons this very improbable and calcu- 
Jated with a view to make the homage go as far as possible. Nothing defi- 
nite can be made out concerning the Lycaonian language ; perhaps a dialect 
of the Lycian,° which Jablonsky ” considered as derived from the Assyrian ; 
Grotius, as identical with the Cappadocian ; and Gühling,® as a corrupt 
Greek. — duowbévtec avd paroc] having become similar to men. Theophanies 


Ava TovTo ovdév avroig EAeyov. 


The distinction there stated of üßpigeıw with 
eis is groundless, See, on the contrary, e.g. 
Dem. 522. ult. 539. 14. 

1 Although two cures of the same kind of 
infirmity and in a similar miraculous manner 
naturally enough produce two similar narra- 
tives, yet it cannot surprise us that, according 
to the criticism of Schneckenburger, Baur, 
and Zeller, the whole of this narrative is as- 
sumed to originate from an Imitation of the 
narrative of the earlier Petrine miracle in 
chap. iii. “But with the miracle is with- 
drawn also the foundation of the attempted 
worship of the two apostles; this, therefore, 
cannot be regarded as historical, and so much 
the less, as it also is exposed to the suspicion 
of having arisen from an exaggerated repeti- 
tion of a trait from the history of Peter,” 
Zeller, p. 214. Comp. Baur, I. p. 112 ff. ed. 2. 


In a corresponding manner have the miracles 
of Paul generally been placed in parallelism 
with those of Peter, to the prejudice of their 
hi-torical truth. Comp ,1n opposition to this 
view, Trip, Paulus nach d. Apostelgesch. p. 
161 ff. 

2 See on Matt. vii. 25, and Valckenaer, p. 
504f. Bornemann, ad Xen. Cyr. vi. 2. 9. 

3 See Buttmann’s neut. Gr. p. 229 f. (E. T. 
266). 

4 Sce, generally, Kühner, § 493. 1, and especi- 
ally Schaefer, ad Dionys. Comp. p. 359. 

5See on Matt. xii. 13, and Bornemann, 
Schol. in Luc. p. 39 f. 

6 Lassen in the Zeit. d. Deutsch. morgenl. 
Gesellsch. 1856, p. 329 f. 

? In Iken’s nov. Thes. II. p. 638 ff. 

8 De lingua Lycaon., Viteb. 1726. 


272 CHAP. XIV., 12-16. 


in human form! belonged, at the instance of the myths of antiquity,* to 
the heathen popular belief, in which such conceptions survived as an echo 
of these ancient myths ;* although Baur (comp. Zeller) discovers here an 
imitation, in which the author of the Acts shows himself as ‘‘ acquainted 
with mythology.’’ Comp., moreover, the analogous conception which at- 
tached itself to the appearance of Pythagoras, of Apollonius of Tyana, and 
others. Such a belief was naturally rejected by philosophers ;° but just 
as naturally it lingered among the people (x). 

Ver. 12. The fact that Barnabas and Paul were declared to be Zeus and 
Hermes, is explained partly and primarily from the well-known provincial 
myth, according to which these gods were once hospitably entertained in 
the same regions by Philemon and Baucis;° but partly also from Zeus 
having a temple in front of the city, ver. 13, and from its being the office 
of Hermes, as the eloquent” interpreter ® and messenger of the gods,’ to ac- 
company his father when he came down to the earth." Paul was called 
Hermes, because, in contrast to his companion, it was he who was ‘ leader 
of the word’ (abröc qv 6 Hy x. T. A.), as Hermes was considered Oeöc 6 rov 
Probably also his more juvenile appearance and greater 
activity, compared with the calmer and older Barnabas, contributed to this ; 
but certainly not, as Neander conjectures, his insignificant bodily appear- 
ance ; for apart from the fact that this rests only on very uncertain tradition— 
in the Acta Pauli et Theclae in Tischendorf, Act. apocr. p. 41, he is de- 
scribed as wixpöc TO weyéder, ıbıAöc THY kedarnv ayKbAo¢ Taic Kvipacc’? —Hermes 
is always represented as a handsome, graceful, very well-formed young man.** 
But certainly Barnabas must have had a more imposing appearance, kal ard 
THe Spewc, afiotpethc, Chrysostom. 

Ver. 13. Dut the priest, then officiating, of the Zeus, who is before the city, 
i.e. of the Zeus (xodebc), who had his seat in a temple in front of the city. 
iepov is not to be supplied, with Kuinoel and others," as rov Aröc is the 
genitive directly belonging to iepete ; but the expression row övroc xpd THE TOA. 
is explained from the heathen conception that the god himself is present in 
his temple, consequently is (övroc) at the place where his temple stands: 
hence the classical expressions rap’ Avi (ad fanum Jovis), rap’ "Hpn.'” Wolf 
thinks that it is spoken ‘‘de Jove, cujus, simulacrum, and so not templum, 
ante urbem erectum erat.’’ But mere statues had no special priests.'* It 
does not, however, follow from this passage, that there was also a temple 
of Jupiter in the city (Olshausen). — raipove kai or&unara] bulls and garlands. 


Adyov yyeuov." 


1 Hom. Od. xvii. 485 ff. 
2See also Niigelsbach, Homer. Theol. p. 


® Apollod. iii. 10. 2. 
10 Hygin. Poet. Astron. 34; Ovid. Fast. v. 


158. 

3 Comp. Themist. vii. p. 90, quoted by Wet- 
stein on ver. 12. 

4 Valckenaer, p, 506. 

5 Plat. Rep. ii. p. 381 C-E; Cic. de Harusp. 
28. 

6 Ovid Met. viii. 611 ff. 

7 Vocis et sermonis potens, Macrob. Sat, 1.8. 

8 Aoyov mpobnrns, Orph. H. 27. 4. 


495. Comp. Walch, Diss. in Act. III. p. 173 ff. 

11 Jamblich. de myster. Aeg. 1. 

12 Comp. Malalas, Chronogr. x. 
Nicephor. H. E. iii. 37. 

13 Comp. Müller, Archäol. § 379, 380. 

14 See Bernhardy, p. 184 f. 

15 Jacobs, ad Del. epigr. p. 229. 

16 See Valckenaer, Opusc. II. p. 295, and 
Schol. I. p. 509. 


p. 247; 


APOSTLES TAKEN FOR GODS. 273 


~ 


“Taurus tibi, summe Deorum,”’ Ovid. Metam. iv. 755. Beza, Calovius, 
Raphel, Erasmus Schmid, Palairet, Morus, Heinrichs, and others, have quite 
erroneously assumed a hendiadys for raupovc éoteuuévovc. This would come 
back to the absurd idea: bulls and, indeed, garlands.’ The destination of 
the garlands is, moreover, not to be referred to the deified apostles, in op- 
position to Grotius and Valckenaer, who, like statues,? were to have been 
adorned ; but to the animals that were to be adorned therewith at the com- 
mencement of the sacrifice, because the design of the garlands is inclu- 
ded in the zVere Siew. —éri toi¢ rvAdvac] to the gates, doors of the gate, 
namely, of the city. This reference is required by the correlation in which 
éxi tovg tvAdvac stands to tov dvto¢ mpd rc möRewc. The alleged incarnate 
gods were in the city, and therefore the sacrifice was to be brought at the 
gates of the city. The reference to the doors of the temple,‘ or of the house 
where the apostles lodged, is not in keeping with the context. 

Vv. 14, 15. ’Axovoavres] Perhaps an inhabitant already gained by them 
for Christ brought intelligence of the design. — dıappn£. r. inar. aur.] from 
pain and sorrow. See on Matt. xxvi. 65. Not: as doing penance for the 
blinded people, as Lange imagines. — éferjdycav] they sprang out from the 
gate, to which they had hastened from their lodging, among the multitude. 
The simple representation depicts their haste and eagerness.—ri raüra roveite ;] 
see on Luke xvi. 2. — kai nueic «.7.A.] evdénc Ex mpooıniwv avétpewav TO KaKdv, 
Chrysostom. — öuoıoradeic] of like nature and constitution.’— evayyerızöusvor . . « 
Cavra| contains what is characteristic of the otherwise öuororaveic iuiv : we 
who bring to you the message of salvation, to turn you from these vain, i.e. 
devoid of divine reality, gods, to the living, true God. evayyerız. does not thus 
mean cohortantes,° but retains its proper import; and the epexegetical in- 
finitive &miorp£oeıw states the contents of the joyful news. It may be cleared 
up by supplying deiv, but this conception is implied in the relation of the 
infinitive to the governing verb.7— rovrwv Tov uaraiov] masculine, not neuter, 
referring to the gods, present in the conception of the hearers, such as Zeus 
and Hermes, who yet are no real gods, 1 Cor. vili. 4 ff.— öc &moinoe] significant 
epexegesis of the Cavra, whereby the uaradérne of the polytheistic deification 
of the individual powers of nature is made very palpable. Comp. with the 
whole discourse the speech to the Athenians (‘‘sublimiora audire 
postulantes,’’ Bengel), chap. xvii. 

Vv. 16-18. Who in the past ages left the Gentiles to themselves, did not 
guide them by special revelation, although He withal made Himself known, 
doing good to them, by the blessings of nature—an indulgent description? of the 
ungodly character of the heathen, with a gently reproving reference to the 
revelation of God in nature. "Opa rüc Aavdavövrwc THY Katnyopiav Tid7OL, 
Chrysostom. Grotius aptly remarks: ‘‘Egregiam hic habemus formam 


1See Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 856. Winer, 5 Comp. Plat. Tim. p. 45 C, Pol. p. 409 B, 


p. 585 (E. T. 786). comp. p. 464 D ; Jas. v. 17. 

2 Comp. ep. Jerem. 9. ¢ Heinrichs and Kuinoel. 

3Sce Wetstein and Dougtaens, Anal. p. 80 7 See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 753 f. ; Kühner, 
ff. ; Hermann, goftesd. Alterth. § 24. 7. II. § 647, ad Xen. Anab. v. %. 34. 


4 oi new iepot Tod vew muAwres, Plut. Tim. 12. 8 Comp. xvii. 30. 


274 CHAP. XIv., 17-25. 
orationis, quam imitari debeant, qui apud populos in idololatria educatos 
evangelium praedicant.’’ '— raic ddoic] local * dative : in their ways.” What is 
meant is the development of the inward and outward life in a way shaped 
by themselves, without divine regulation and influence, and also without 
the intervention of the divine anger. Comp. Rom. iii. 10 ff., 1. 22 ff., 
where the whole moral abomination and curse of this relation is unveiled, 
whereas here only alluring gentleness speaks.*— kairoıye ovk audpr. K.T.2.] 
An indication that they, nevertheless, might and should have known Him.° 
Observe the relation of the three participles, of which the second is logically 
subordinate to the first, and the third to the second ; as doer of good, in 
that He gives you rain, thereby filling, ete.— obpavdder] not uselessly added. 
‘‘Coelum sedes Dei,’’ Bengel. Observe also the individualizing ipiv (see 
critical remarks).— evopocivyc] joy generally. Arbitrarily, Grotius and Wolf 
suggest that® wine is meant.— räg kapdiac dur] neither stands for the simple 
bac, nor is it to be taken, with Wolf, of the stomach ;7 but the heart is 
‚filled with food, inasmuch as the sensation of being filled, the pleasant feeling 
of satisfaction, is in the heart. Comp. Ps. civ. 15; Jas. v. 5.—rov um Siew 
auroic] comp. x. 47. The genitive depends on kar£ravcav, according to the 
construction karar. rıva rıvoc, to divert a person from a thing, to hinder him 
in it,® and w7 is the usual particle with verbs of preventing and hindering.’ 
Vv. 19-22. This unmeasured veneration was by hostile Jews who arrived 
(&77?%0v) from Antioch” and Iconium," transformed in the fickle multitude'? 
into a participation in a tumultuous attempt to kill Paul. Between this 
scene very summarily related and the preceding no interval is, according 
to the correct text (see critical remarks), to be placed, in opposition to Ewald. 
The mobile vulgus, that aoraYunrörarov mpaypya Tov aravrwv,'is at once carried 
away from one extreme to another. — kai reicavtec k,r.A.] and after they, the 
Jews who had arrived, had persuaded the multitude to be of their party, and 
stoned * Paul, the chief speaker ! they dragged him, etc. — kvrAucavrwv] not 
sepeliendi causa, Bengel, Kuinoel. and others,—a thought quite arbitrarily 
supplied ; but in natural painful sympathy the Lystrians who had been 
converted to Christ surrounded him who was apparently dead. — avaora¢ 
etonAvev eig T. m.) 18 certainly conceived as a miraculous result. — Ver 22. 
kai Ort K.7.A.] comp. ver. 27; but here so, that from rapaxadovvrec a kindred 


1 Comp. Schneckenburger, die natiirl. Theol. 
d. Paul. in his Beitr. p. 97 fi. 

2 See, generally, on the dativus localis, 
Becker, Homer. Blatter, 208 f. 

3 Comp. on 2 Cor. xii. 18 ; Jude 11; Judith 
xiii. 16; Ecclus. xxxv. 20. 

4The announcement of the gospel forms 
the great epoch in the history of salvation, 
with the emergence of which the times of 
men’s being left to themselves are fulfilled. 
See xvii. 30; Rom. iii. 25f. Comp also He- 
bart, natärl. Theol.d. Ap. Paul. p. 13. For 
judgment Jesus has come into the world. 

5 Comp. Rom. i. 20, kairoıye, as in John iy. 
2, quamquam quidem, and yet. Sce also 


Baeumlein, Partik. p. 245 ff.; and Kriiger, 
Dion. H. p. 267. 

6 Ecclus. xxxi. 33. 

7 Thue. II. 4972. 

8 Hom. Od. xxiv. 457; Plat. Polit. p. 294 E; 
frequently in the LXX. 

® Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 167 f. ; Baeum- 
lein, Z.c. p. 298 ff. 

10 xiii. 14, 50. 

11 vy. 1, 5, 6. 

12 “ Ventosae plebis suffragia!*’ Hor. Zp. 
i. 19. 37. 

13 Dem. 388, 5. 

14 Consequently in the city. It was to bea 
dovos SnuddAevotos ev moAcı (Soph. Ant. 36). 


PAUL STONED. 275 


verb (Aéyovrec) must be borrowed.! — dei] namely, ex deereto divino. Comp. ix. 
16. — juac| we Christians must, through many afflictions, enter into the 
Messianic kingdom, fac. r. Ocov, to be established at the Parousia. Comp. 
Matt. x. 38; Rom. viii. 17 f. ; also the saying of Christ in Barnab. ep. 7: 
ot VERovric ue Ideiv Kk. GWaodai pov rc Bacıreiac dgeidover BAıßevrec K. TadévTeEC 
Aaßeiv we. ‘* Si ad vitam ingredi cupis, afflictiones quoque tibi necessario 
sufferendae-sunt.’’? That, moreover, the stoning here narrated is the same 
as that mentioned in 2 Cor. xi. 25,* is necessarily to be assumed, so long as 
we cannot wantonly admit the possibility that the author has here inserted 
the incident known to him from 2 Cor. only for the sake of the contrast, 
or because he knew not a more suitable place to insert it; so Zeller. It is, 
however, an entirely groundless fancy of Lange, that the apparent death 
in vv. 19, 20 is what is*meant by the trance in 2 Cor. xii. 1 ff. 

Ver. 28. Xerporovyoavres]| Erasmus, correctly : suffragüs delectos. The 
ecclesiastical offices were apyai xeıporovgrai or aiperai.* The analogy of vi. 
2-6 requires this strict regard to the purposely chosen word, which, resting 
on the old method of choice by lifting up the hands, occurs in the N. T. 
only here and in 2 Cor. viii. 19,° and forbids the general rendering consti- 
tuebant,® or eligebant,’ so that the appointment would have taken place sim- 
ply by apostolic plenary power,* although the word in itself? might denote 
eligere generally without that special mode. Paul and Barnabas chose by vote 
presbyters for them, ö.e. they conducted their selection by vote in the 
churches.'® Entirely arbitrary and erroneous is the Catholic interpretation, 
that it refers to the yepo%ecia at the ordination of presbyters (L?). — kar’ 
éxkAnoiav| distributively.” Each church obtained several presbyters, xx. 17; 
Phil. i. 1.'3 — rpooev£. wera vnor.] belongs to rapéevro, not, as Kuinoel sup- 
poses, to yeıpor. See on xiii. 9. The committing™ of the Christians of 
those places to the Lord,commending them to His protection and guidance, 
which took place at the farewell,'* was done by means of an act of prayer 
combined with fasting. The Kipcoc is Christ, as the specific object of faith, 
tic bv rerıor., not God (de Wette). 

Vv. 25, 26. Tlöpyn] see on xiii. 13. — Attalia, now Adalia," was a sea- 
port of Pamphylia, at the mouth of the Catarrhactes, built by Attalys 
Philadelphus, king of Pergamus.'*—’ Avrioy.] They returned to Syria, to the 


1 See Kühner. II. p. 605. Buttmann, nevt. 
Gr. p. 330 (E. 'T. 385). Comp. Krebs, p. 225. 

2 Vajikra Rabba, f. 173, 4. 

3 Comp. Clem. Cor. 1.5: Ac@ac@eis. 

4 Hermann, Sfaatsalterth. § 148. 1. 

5 See on that passage. 

6 Vulgate, Hammond, Kuinoel, and many. 

7 De Wette. 

8 Lihe. 

2 Comp. x. 41, Lucian. Philops. 12, al. 

10 Comp. Calvin in loc.; Rothe, Anf. d. 
Christl. Kirche, p. 150; Neander, I. p. 203. 
Against Schrader, V. p. 543, who finds in the 
appointment of presbyters a Urrepov mporepor ; 
sce Lechler, apost. u.nachapost. Zeitalt. 358 f. 
On the essence of the matter, Ritscbl, altkatk. 


K. p. 363, correctly remarks that the choice 
was only the form of the recognition of the 
charisma and of subjection to it ; not the basis 
of the office, but only the medium, through 
which the divine gift becomes the ecclesiasti- 
cal office. Comp. on Eph. iv. 11. 

11 See Cornelius a Lapide, and Beelen still, 
not Sepp. 

12 See Bernhardy, p. 240. 

13 See Rothe, p. 181 ff. 

14 Comp. xx. 32. 

15 See on maparıdevar, Kypke, II. p. 70. 

16 Comp. xx. 32. 

17 See Fellows, Travels in Asia Minor, p. 
133 ff. 

18 Strabo, xiv. 4, p. 667. 


276 CHAP. XIV., 27, 28. 


mother church which had sent them forth. — éfev joav mapaded. k.7.2.] from 
which they were commended to the grace of God for (the object) the work which 
they had accomplished. fev denotes the direction outwards, in which the 
recommendation of the apostles to the grace of God had taken place at 
Antioch.’ 

Vv. 27. 28. Zwayay.] expressly for this object. Comp. xv. 30. Calvin 
observes well: ‘‘quemadmodum solent, qui ex legatione reversi sunt, ra- 
tionem actorum reddere.’’ — yer’ airav] standing in active connection with 
them.” As the text requires no deviation from this first and most natural 
rendering, both the explanation per ipsos* and the assumption of a Hebraism 
nivy with DY (Luke i. 72): quae ipsis Deus fecisset,* are to be rejected. — 
kal örı] and, in particular, that, etc. — iwoıfe Oipav rictewc] a figurative 
designation of admission to the faith in Christ. Corresponding is the figu- 
rative use of @ipain 1 Cor. xvi. 9, 2 Cor. ii. 12, Col. iv. 3, of the fulfiill- 
ing of apostolic work ; comp. also eicodoc, 1 Thess. i. 9. — xp6vov ovK öAiyov] 
is the object of duérpiBov, as in ver. 3 ; they spent not a little time in intercourse 
with the Christians. 


Notes BY AMERICAN EDITOR, 


(a?) Iconium. V. 1. 


This city was situated about sixty miles eastward of Antioch, on the road 
between Ephesus and Syrian Antioch. In the middle ages it was celebrated as 
the capital of the Seljukian Sutans. It is at present a town of considerable 
importance ; retains its ancient name Konieh ; contains a population of 
30,090 ; and is the capital of the Turkish province of Cancarania. It is de- 
scribed by travellers as a scene of destruction and decay, with heaps of ruins. 
Scarcely anything remains of ancient Iconium save a few inscriptions and 
fragments of columns and sculpture built into the walls. How it appeared in 
the time of Paul we know not ; but it was large and populous. ‘‘ The elements 
of its population would be as follows : a large number of trifling and frivolous 
Greeks, whose principal places of resort would be the theatre and the market- 
place ; some remains of a still older population, coming in from the country, or 
residing in a separate part of the town ; some few Roman officials, civil or mili- 
tary, holding themselves proudly aloof from the inhabitants of a subjugated 
province ; and an old settlement of Jews, who exercised their trade during the 
week, and met on the Sabbath to read the law in the synagogue.” Thither the 
two strangers, driven from Antioch by wicked, crafty, and violent opposition 
of the Jews, came in accordance with the injunction of the Master, that when 
rejected in one house or city, they should go into another. 


1 See xiii. 3f. Comp. xv. 40. 3 Beza, Piscator, Heinrichs. 

2 Comp. x. 38; Matt. xxviii. 20 ; also 1 Cor. 4 Calvin, de Dieu, Grotius, Kuinoel, and 
xv. 10; and Mark xvi. 20: tov Kupiov guvep- many others ; comp. also de Wette. 
syouvTos. 


NOTES. 277 


‘ (7) An assault made. V. 5. 


The word öpun, as explained by Meyer, does not mean just this ; but an im- 
petus or strong pressure, impulse or purpose. It implies here a state of mind 
of which some intimation was given: ‘‘ There was a strong feeling among 
them ” against the apostles—a movement of some kind. The success of the 
apostles in Iconium was very great ; a multitude both of Jews and Greeks be- 
lieved. They remained there several months. We have no account of what 
they preached ; but doubtless in the synagogues, and from house to house, 
they preached that Jesus was the Christ, and that through him, and him alone, 
could be obtained the forgiveness of sins. They also wrought many miracles, 
as attestations of their divine commission and of the truth of their doctrine. 
Their success, however, aroused the hostility of the Jews, who were ever jeal- 
ous of the old faith, and opposed to the admission of the Gentiles to like 
privileges with themselves. They looked upon Christianity, not as the out- 
growth and perfection of Judaism, but as its antagonistic rival ; hence their 
indignation at its success, and their embittered and continued hostility to its 
preachers. We are informed that the Jews sent out their emissaries every- 
where to circulate falsehoods concerning the Christians, and to stir up the Gen- 
tiles against them. Of the many persecutions mentioned in the Acts, all were 
caused by the Jews except two. Tradition says that Paul frequently preached 
long and late—that his enemies brought him before the civil authorities, 
charging him with disturbing their households by his sorcery, and greatly 
troubling the city. It is probable that here, as suggested by Hackett, that 
they insinuated that the preachers were dangerous men, and disloyal to the 
empire. 

In the apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla there is a legend given concerning 
Paul’s visit to Iconium, the substance of which is this; that Thecla, who was 

_espoused to Thamyris, was deeply affected by the preaching of the apostle ; 
and when Paul was put in prison, accused of being a magician, she bribed the 
jailer, and was allowed to visit the prisoner, by whom she was more fully in- 
structed in the Christian faith, which she heartily adopted. She was con- 
demned to die because she refused to marry Thamyris, but was miraculously 
delivered ; joined Paul in his missionary journeys ; finally she made her home 
at Seleucea, where she lived the life of a nun, and died at the age of ninety 
years. 

The Acts of Paul and Thecla gives a portrait-description of the apostle’s per- 
son and physiognomy, which is by no means flattering. He is represented as 
“a man small in size, bald-headed, bandy-legged, stout, with eyebrows meet- 
ing, rather long-nosed, full of grace—for sometimes he seemed like a man, and 
sometimes he had the countenance of an angel.” Other accounts add that he 
had small, piercing gray eyes. His manner was singularly winning. ‘The 
poverty of the casket served to assist the lustre of the jewel it contained ; the 
‘plainness of the setting called attention to the worth of the gem.” 


(3?) Cities of Lycaonia. V. 6. 


Eseaping threatened violence at Iconium, the apostles went into a wilder 
and less civilized region. The name, Lycaonia or Wolfland, indicates only too 
faithfully the character of the inhabitants. Few, if any, Jews were settled 


NOTES. 





278 CHAP. XIV. 


there, and we read of no synagogue in either of the towns named. The re- 
gion is described as wild, rugged, mountainous ; an almost Alpine country, 
with numerous lakes and rivers, which, with the melting of the spring snows, 
become suddenly rapid and dangerous torrents ; the roads were bad, and in- 
fested with brigands. Lycaonia is an elevated table-land, a great part of 
which is unwatered and sterile, and described as a dreary plain, destitute alike 
of trees and fresh water. Ovid, writing of the place, says: 
* Where men once dwelt, a marshy lake is seen, 
And coots and bitterns haunt the waters green.” 

Neither Lystra nor Derbe were large cities or places of any great importance ; 
hence the apostles embraced the surrounding country and villages in their 
field of evangelistic labor. The difficulties and obstacles in the way of the 
apostles were very great. Yet with unwearied zeal they evangelized the whole 
region. To no part of Paul’s life would the account he vividly gives to the 
Corinthians of his personal experience more fitly apply than to his labors 
here: “In perils,’’ etc. (2 Cor. ii. 26). The sites of both Lystra and Derbe 
are uncertain. Lystra, however, has a post-apostolie history—the names of its 
bishops appearing in the records of early councils. It was the home of 
Timothy, who in all probability was converted under the preaching of Paul at 
this time. Here Paul performed a miracle in perfectly restoring, by a word, 
a man who had been a cripple from his birth. The people marvelled ; and 
believing the power to be divine, they thought that two of their pagan gods 
had appeared in the persons of the apostles. 


(kK?) Gods in the likeness of men. V. 11. 


It was a general belief, long after the Homeric age, that gods visited the earth 
in the form of men. Such a belief with regard to Jupiter would be natural in 
such an inland rural district as Lystra, which seems to have been under his 
special protection, as his image or temple stood in front of the city gates. 
And as Mercury was the messenger and herald of the gods, especially of Jupi- 
ter, it was natural that he should be associated with him. He was also the 
god of eloquence ; and as Paul was the chief speaker, they took him for Mer- 
cury ; and the more quiet, and perhaps the more aged, venerable, and majes- 
tic looking Barnabas, they regarded as Jupiter. 


“* Jove with Hermes came, but in disguise 

Of mortal men concealed their deities.” 
The pagan priests, true to the functions of their office, hasten to bring oxen 
and garlands of flowers to crown the victims and wreath the altars, to the tem- 
ple at the gates, within which Jupiter was supposed specially to dwell, and 
there to offer sacrifices to Paul and Barnabas. The apostles, when they ascer- 
tained what the people and priests were about to do, were horror-stricken. 
Rending their clothes, they rushed out among the people and expressed their 
abhorrence of the proposed service. We can well imagine with what impas- 
sioned earnestness and vehemence Paul uttered the address of which we have 
only an outline. He exclaims: ‘‘ We are not gods, but men of like nature and 
feelings as yourselves ; that these supposed gods whom ye worship are mere 
vanities, and their worship debasing. We have come to declare to you the 


NOTES. 279 


one living and true God ; that this living God made all things, in heaven above, 
and in the earth beneath ; that this God has never left himself without a wit- 
ness in the munificent gifts of nature and the benevolent dealings of his gra- 
cious providence.” This clear and cogent address scarcely restrained the igno- 
rant and superstitious people from their impious act. What a contrast be- 
tween the inhabitants of Jerusalem and those of Lystra! When a miracle 
similar to this was performed by Peter, he was not deified but imprisoned. 
The reality of the miracle was admitted, but the apostles were straitly threat- 
ened. The minds of the instructed rulers of the Jews were hardened and 
blinded by prejudice, and they reasoned against the truth ; the ignorant peo- 
ple at Lystra did not reason, but came at once to a conclusion, natural in their 
circumstances, which, though mistaken, rebukes the vaunted wisdom of the 
Jewish Sanhedrim. The people were disappointed in being hindered in their 
idolatrous design, and were all the more ready to listen to the vile insinuations 
and cruel instigations of those Jews who had, with evil purpose against the 
apostles, come from Antioch and Iconium. ‘The fickle and faithless Lyca- 
onians,’’ excited and ignorant, and easily duped, listened to the Jews, and 
were induced to stone Paul on the very place where but just now they were 
ready to worship him. A similar sudden change, but in a different direction, 
subsequently occurred at Malta, among the barbarous people, who first thought 
Paul a murderer, and then immediately afterward a god. What had only 
been purposed by the people at Iconium was perpetrated by the inhabitants of 
Lystra. It is observable that we read of no injury done to Barnabas. Paul's 
intenser zeal and fiery eloquence doubtless provoked their special ire. He 
who had approved and assisted at the stoning of Stephen is now himself 
stoned for the same cause. Some suppose Paul to have been really dead ; 
others that he was only stunned, It is clearly implied, however, that his res- 
toration was supernatural. As soon as Paul recovered his strength the apos- 
tles proceeded to Derbe, distant about twenty miles. Paul, in writing to Tim- 
othy many years afterward, reminds him of his knowledge of his own perse- 
eutions ‘ at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra ;” andin his catalogue of sufferings 
given to the Corinthians is this instance: “Once was I stoned” (2 Cor. xi. 25, 
and 2 Tim. iii. 11). Paley, from the various references to this event, draws a 
forcible argument for the authenticity of the narrative by Luke: ‘‘ Had the 
assault [at Iconium] been completed , had the history related that a stone was 
thrown, as it relates that preparations were made both by Jews and Gentiles to 
stone Paul and his companions ; or even had the account of this transaction 
stopped, without going on to inform us that Paul and his companions were 
aware of their danger and fled, a contradiction between the history and the 
Epistles would have ensued. Truth is necessarily consistent ; but it is scarcely 
possible that independent accounts, not having truth to guide them, should 
thus advance to the very brink of contradiction without falling into it.’’ (Horas 
Pauline, chap. IV. No. 9.) 


(1?) Chosen them elders. V. 23. 


The meaning of the word rendered chosen has been disputed. xeiporoveo, 
compounded of yeis, hand, and reivo, to stretch or extend, means to stretch out 
the hand. Robinson gives: to stretch out or hold up the hand, hence to vote; to 
appoint; as also Liddell and Scott, to vole for, to elect. Bloomfield says: 


280 CHAP. XIV.—NOTES. 


« There is, indeed, no point on which the most learned have been so much 
agreed as this, that yeıporovjoavres here simply denotes having selected, consti- 
tuted, appointed. Alford says : ‘‘ The word will not bear the sense of laying on of 
hands,’’ and adds : ‘‘The apostles ordained the presbyters whom the churches 
elected.’’ Gloag says the word admits of two meanings, to choose by election, or 
simply to choose. Meyer adopts the first of these meanings. Gloag decidedly 
prefers the second, as does also Hackett, who says: ‘‘ That formality (election 
by extending the hand) could not have been observed in this instance, as but 
two individuals performed the act in question.” Abbott says the word is 
used ‘‘ as equivalent to select or appoint, and understands the declaration to be 
that the apostles appointed elders, without any indication whether the selection 
was made by themselves or first by the lay members of the church, and ratified 
by the apostles, or by the concurrent action of,the two.’’ While, as we learn 
from chap. vi., the seven were chosen by the whole church, it would appear, 
in this instance, that these elders were chosen by Paul and Barnabas alone. 
Clemens gives the following rule as handed down by tradition from the apos- 
tles : ‘‘ That persons should be appointed to ecclesiastical offices by approved 
men, the whole church consenting.” This is the second mention of elders in 
the Acts (xi. 30). ‘The ministers of the church were called mpeoßvrepor 
(elders), with reference to the Jewish element in the church ; and &riokomor 
(overseers), with reference to the Greek element.” (Gloag.) 


CRITICAL REMARKS, 281 


CHAPTER XV. 


VER. 1. repıreuvnoße] ABCD NS, min. Constitut. Ath. Epiph. have mepırundire. 
Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. ; and rightly, as the 
witnesses are so preponderating, and the reference of the aorist easily escaped 
the notice of the transcribers. — Ver. 2. oöv] Tisch. Born. read dé. The wit- 
nesses for de preponderate. — (nrnoews]) Elz. has ovgyrycews, in opposition to 
decisive testimony. From ver. 7. It is also in favour of (yr. that it is inserted 
in ver, 7, instead of ovöyr. inA,N, min. vss., which evidently points to the 
originality of Gr. in our passage. — Ver. 4. ared£yd.] Lachm. Tisch. and Born, 
read rapedéy9., according to A B D** (D* has zapedößncav) N loti: These wit- 
nesses preponderate, and there are no internal reasons against the reading. — 
$70] Tisch. reads dzé, following only BC, min. — Ver. 7. &v nuiv] Lach. Tisch. 
read Ev juiv, according to A B C &, min. and several yss. and Fathers. But 
qty is Necessary ; and on this acconnt, and because it might easily be mechan- 
ically changed into juiv after the preceding ‘wes, it is to be defended on the 
considerable attestation remaining to it. -- Ver. 11. tod Kupiov ’Inooü] Elz. has 
Kupiov ’Inooö Xpıorov, against preponderating evidence. Whilst the article was 
omitted from negligence, Xpıcroö (which also Born. has) was added in order to 
complete the dogmatically important saying. — Ver. 14. to övönarı] so Lachm. 
Tisch. Born. But Elz. Scholz have em 76 övöu.,— an exegetical expansion, 
against preponderating evidence. — Ver. 17. After raura Elz. has ravra, which 
is wanting in A BC D 8, min. and many vss. and Fathers. From LXX. Amos 
ix, 12, and hence it also stands before raüra in E G, min.— Ver. 18, Griesb. 
Scholz, and Tisch. have only yrword ar’ aidvos, so that this must be attached to 
raöra in ver. 17. This reading appears as decidedly original, and so éorr ... 
avrov as decidedly interpolated : partly because BC &, min. Copt. Sahid. Arm. 
vouch for the simple yrword am’ aidvos, and those authorities which have éorz 

. . avrov present a great number of variations ; partly because it was thought 
very natural to complete yvworä ar’ aidvos into a sentence, and to detach it from 
ver. 17, inasmuch as no trace of yyword ar’ aiwvos was found in Amos ix. 12 ; 
partly, in fine, because, if éo7: . . . abrov is genuine, ver. 18 contains a 
thought so completely clear, pious, and unexceptionable, so inoffensive, too, 
as regards the connection, and in fact noble, that no reason can be conceived 
for the omission of &orı . . , ajrov, and for the numerous variations in the 
words. Lachm. has yrwordy az’ aiovos ro Kupiw ro Epyav atrod, after A D, Arm. 
Vulg. Cant. Ir., which betrays a still later origin than the Recepta, as the 
genuine yrword am’ alövos first gave occasion to the casting of the sentence in 
the plural form, but afterwards, in order to bring forward the special reference 
to the £pyov in question of the conversion of the Gentiles, the change into the 
singular form was adopted. Matth. has entirely erased ver. 18, without 
evidence. — Ver. 20. kai roi rvırron] is, following Mill, erased by Born. as & 
later addition ; Ambrosiaster already explains the words as such, and, indeed, 
as proceeding from the stricter observance of the Greeks. But thev are only 


252 CHAP. Xv., 1-4. 


wanting in D, Cant. Ir. Tert. Cypr. Pacian, Fulgent. Hier. Gaudent. Eucher. 
Ambrosiast., of whom several omit them only in ver. 29. The omission is ex- 
plained from Lev. xvii. 13, where the eating of things strangled generally is 
not forbidden, but only the pouring out of the blood is made a condition ; and 
from the laxer view of the Latins. After ver. 20 (so, too, in ver. 29 after 
xopveias), D, min. vss. and Fathers have the entirely irrelevant addition from 
Matt. vii. 12: kai 60a (or dca dv) un OéAwow Eavrois yiveotar, éTépors um moLeiv 
(roveire). — Ver. 22. éxcxad.] Lachm. has caAovuevor, also commended by Griesb., 
according to decisive evidence, and adopted by Tisch. and Born. Rightly : the 
former is an interpretation. — Ver. 23. kat of adeAgoi] A BC D S* lot. 13. Arm. 
Vulg. Cant. and some Fathers have merely adeAdoi, which Lachm. and Born. 
have adopted.! But the omission of «ai of is on hierarchical grounds, for which 
reason also 34 Sahid. have omitted kai of adeAgoi entirely. — Ver. 24. Aéyovres 
mepit. k. rmpeiv Tov vouov is wanting in AB DNS, lot. 13, Copt. Aeth. Sahid. 
Vulg. Cant. Constitut. Ath. Epiph. Vigil. Bed«. Besides variations in detail. 
Deleted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. Probably a gloss ; yet it remains surprising 
that it was drawn not from ver. 1, but from ver. 5, and so freely. Besides, 
Agyovres ... voMON might be easily passed over after SMQN. — Ver. 25. éxAega- 
wevovs] A B Gmin. read éxAcSauévars. So Lachm. A stylistic correction. — Ver. 
28. Instead of tév Eravayk. rovrwv is to be written, with Lachm., according to 
preponderating evidence, tovtwy rov éx. ; Tisch. has erased rovrwv, yet only 
after A and some min. and Fathers. — Ver. 30. 72@ov] Lachm. and Born. read 
xat7A9ov, which is so decidedly attested (ABC DS) that it may not be derived 
from ver. 1. The compounds of épyeofuc were often neglected. — Ver. 33, anoo- 
reiAavras abrovs] Elz. reads arooroAovs, contrary to A B C DNS, min. and 
several vss. and Fathers. A more precisely defining addition, which, taken 
into the text, supplanted the original. — After ver. 33, Elz. Scholz, Born. have 
(ver. 34) : &dofe 0? TO Lida Erıueivaı abtod, to which D and some vss. and Cassiod. 
add: uövos dt ’Iovdas éxopevOn (so Bornemann), Condemned by Mill, Griesb. 
Matthaei, also deleted by Lachm. and Tisch., according to A B E GH &, min. 
Chrys. Theophyl. and several vss. A hasty addition on account of ver. 40.— 
Ver. 37. &3ovAevcaro] Lachm. reads é3ovAeT0, which also Griesb. recommended, 
after AB CE, min. Born., following D, reads &dovAevero. While the two 
verbs are frequently (comp. on v. 33) interchanged, é3o0vAeto is here to be pre- 
ferred on account of its far preponderant-attestation. — Ver. 40.0.0] ABD, 
min. vss, have Kvpiov. So Lachm. Tisch, also Born., who only omits tod, 
following D*. Oevö is from xiv. 26. 


Vv. 1, 2. The Jewish-Christian opinion, that the Gentiles could only in 
the way of circumcision and observance of the law—that is, in the way of 
Jewish Christianity—obtain the salvation of the Messianic kingdom, was 
by no means set aside by the diffusion of Christianity among the Gentiles, 
which had so successfully taken place since the conversion of Cornelius. 
On the contrary, it was too closely bound up with the whole training and 
habit of mind of the Jews, especially of those who were adherents of the 
Pharisees,* not to have presented, as the conversions of the Gentiles 


1 Approved by Buttmann in the Stud. u. 2 Comp. Ewald, p. 464 f. 
Krit. 1860, p. 358. 


DELEGATES SENT TO JERUSALEM. 283 


increased, an open resistance to the freedom of the Gentile brethren from 
the law,—a freedom which exhibited itself in their whole demeanour to 
the scandal of the strict legalists, —and to have made the question on which 
it hinged the most burning question of the time. This opposition—the 
most fundamental and most dangerous in the apostolic church, for the 
overcoming of which the whole further labour of a Paul was requisite— 
emerged in the very central seat of Gentile Christianity itself at Antioch ; 
whither some! from Judaea, tov remiorevxdtwv ard r7c aipéoewe TOV Papıcalwv,? 
came down with this doctrine : [fye shall not have been circumcised (xepitund., 
see the critical remarks) according to the custom ordered by Moses, and so have 
taken upon you the obligation of obedience to the whole law, Gal. v. 3, ye 
cannot obtain the salvation in Christ! (M?).—ordcewg® x. Cyrioewc ;* 
division and disputation. — itafav| namely, the adeAgoi, ver. 1, the Christians 
of Antioch, comp. ver. 3. — Jerusalem was the mother-church of all Chris- 
tianity ; here the apostles had their abode, who, along with the presbyters 
of the church, occupied for the Christian theocracy a position similar to 
that of the Sanhedrim. Comp. Grotius. The recognition of this on the 
part of Paul is implied in Gal. ii. 1, 2.— kai twac dddove & abrov] among 
whom, according to Gal. ii. 1, was Titus, not named at all in the Acts, un- 
less Paul voluntarily took him as companion, which is more suitable to the 
expression in Gal. ii. 1. — We may add that the commission of the church, 
under which Paul made the journey, is by no means excluded by the state- 
ment: kara arokdAviuv, Gal. ii. 2; see on Gal. l.c. Subtleties directed 
against our narrative may be seen in Zeller, p. 224 f. — Gyrnua, quaestio, i.e. 
question in dispute, in the N. T. only in the Book of Acts; often in Greek 
writers. 

Ver. 3. Ilporeupß£vrec] after they were sent forth, deducti, i.e. escorted for a 
part of the way.° Morus and Heinrichs: ‘‘rebus ad iter suscipiendum 
necessarjis instructi.’’ That, however, must have been suggested by the 
context, as in Titus iii. 13. The provision with necessaries for the journey 
is understood of itself,® but is not contained in the words. — roi¢ adeAdoic| 
They caused joy by their visit and by their narratives, not only to the 
Jewish-Christians,’ but to all. 

Vv. 4, 5. Iaped£x@noav (see the critical remarks) denotes, in keeping with 
the delegation in ver. 2 f., the reception, i.e. the formal receiving of the 
delegates as such.” Observe the prefixing of éxxAyoia ; comp. Phil. i. 1. — 
pet aurov]) see on xiv. 27; comp. di avrov, ver. 12. — Ver. 5 belongs to the 
narrative of Luke, who here records as worthy of remark, that at the very 
first meeting of the delegates with the church receiving them, the very 
same thing was maintained by some who rose up in the assembly (éfavéoryo.), 


1 According to Epiphan. Haer. 26, Cerin- 5 Comp. 3 John 6; Herod. i. 111, viii. 124, 
thus is supposed to have been among them. 126; Plat. Menex. p. 236 D; Soph. O. C. 1663. 

2 As Syr. p. has on the margin, and codd. 8. 6 Although the travellers, on account of the 
137 in the text, as a certainly correct gloss, hospitality of the churches, which they visited 
see ver. 5. by the way, certainly needed but little, 

3 xxiii. 7,10; Soph. ©. R. 634. 7 Heinrichs. 


4 xxv. 20; John iii. 25. 8 Comp. 2 Macc. iv. 22. 


284 CHAP. XY., 9-11. 


and was opposed (dé) to the narration of Paul and Barnabas öoa 6 Oeb¢ éxoince 
pet’ aurov, as had been brought forward by Jews at Antioch and had occa- 
sioned this mission. Those mentioned in ver. 1, and those who here came 
forward, belonged to one and the same party, the Pharisee-Christians, and 
therefore ver. 5 is unjustly objected to by Schwanbeck. Beza, Piscator, 
Wakefield, and Heinrichs put ver. 5 into the mouth of the delegates ; holding 
that there is a rapid transition from the oblique to the direct form, 
and that &Aeyov is to be supplied after é£avéor. dé. A harsh and arbitrary 
view, as the change in form of the discourse must naturally and necessarily 
have been suggested by the words, as in i. 4 and xvii. 3. That the depu- 
tation had already stated the object of their mission, was indeed self- 
evident from azedéyOyoav, and hence it was not requisite that Luke should 
particularly mention it. —aitotc] namely, the Gentile-Christians, as those 
to whom the narrative éca 6 Oeöc Er. u. ait. had chiefly reference ; not the 
rwac äAAovc, ver. 2,1 which is erroneously inferred from Gal. ii. — They 
must be circumcised, ete., has a dictatorial and hierarchical tone. 

Ver. & The consultation of the apostles and presbyters concerning this 
assertion (repi tov Aöyov rovrov, see ver. 5) thus put forward here afresh, was 
not confined to themselves — Schwanbeck, who here assumes a confusion of 
sources — but took place in presence, and with the assistance, of the whole 
church assembled together, as is evident from ver. 12, comp. with ver. 22, and 
most clearly from ver. 25, where the aröoroAoı kai of tpecBitepos Kai ol adeAool 
ver. 23, write of themselves: éofev num yevouévorc duofvuaddv. Against this 
it has been objected that no place would have sufficed to hold them, and 
therefore it is maintained that only deputies of the church took part ;* but 
this is entirely arbitrary, as the text indicates nothing of such a limitation, 
and the locality is entirely unknown to us. — This assembly and its trans- 
actions are not at variance with Gal. 11. 1 ff., in opposition to Baur, Zeller, 
Hilgenfeld, Hausrath, where, indeed, they are presupposed as known to 
the readers by avroic in ver. 2, as well as by ver. 3 and ver. 5. Hofmann, 
N. T.. 1. p. 126, judges otherwise, but by a misinterpretation of Gal. ii. 
4 ff. The words kar’ idiav dé roic doxovor, Gal. ii. 2; betoken a separate dis- 
cussion, different from these public discussions? (n?). 

Ver. 7. IoAAnc de ovlyricewc yevouévyc] These were the preliminary debates 
in the assembly, before Peter, to whom the first word belonged, partly by 
reason of his apostolic precedence, partly and especially because he was the 
first to convert the Gentiles, rose up and delivered a connected address. * 
In this previous 70447 ov£nrnoıc may have occurred the demand for the cir- 
cumcision of Titus, indirectly mentioned in Gal. ii. 3. See on Gal. l.c. — 
ag’ nuspov apxaiov] does not point to the conversion of Cornelius as to some- 
thing long since antiquated and forgotten.° But certainly that selection of 


1 Lekebusch. 


2 Mosheim, de reb. Christ. ante Const. M. p. 


117, Kuinoel, Neander. 

3See on Gal. /.c. ; comp. also Lekebusch, 
p. 294 ff. ; Lechler, p. 398 ff. ; Ritschl, alikath. 
EK. p. 150; Trip, Paulus nach d. Apostelgesch. 
p. 86 ff. ; Oertel, p. 232 #. 


4There is no further mention of Peter in 
the Book of Acts.—-The reference to the con- 
version of Cornelius 1s introduced, according 
to Baur, simply in pursuance of the consistent 
plan of the author, who makes Peter thus 
speak after the manner of Paul. 

5 Baur, I. p. 91, ed. 2. 


PETER’S ADDRESS. 285 


Peter as the first converter of the Gentiles, viewed in relation to the entire 
period, during which Christianity had now existed, dated from ancient days, 
Acts. x. 11. — év juiv E£eAkfaro «.7.A.] He made choice for Himself among us, 
that by my mouth, etc. Hence éué is not to be supplied, as Olshausen, fol- 
lowing older commentators, holds. Others—Grotius, Wolf, Bengel, Hein- 
richs, Rosenmüller, Kuinoel, and many others—unnecessarily take év juiv for 
jac as a Hebraism in accordance with 2 %N2.! Beza aptly says : ‘‘ habito 
inter nos delectu voluisse.’? — Luke has the word ebayyéavov only here and 
in xx. 24, not at all in the Gospel. John also has it not. 

Vv. 8-10. God who knows the heart, who thus could not be deceived in 
the matter,* has, in reference to this their admission effected by my instru- 
mentality into the fellowship of the gospel and of faith (ver. 7), done two 
things. He has (a) positively borne matter-of-fact witness for them, to their 
qualification for admission, by His giving to them the Holy Spirit, as to us ;* 
and (0) negatively, He made in no way distinction between us and them, after 
He by faith, of which He made them partakers through the gospel, had 
purified their hearts, God would have made such a distinction, if, after 
this ethical‘ purification of the heart effected by faith, He had now required 
of them, for their Christian standing, something else, namely, circumcision 
and other works of the law; but faith, by which He had morally purified 
their inner life, was to Him the sole requisite for their Christian standing 
without distinction, as also with us. Observe on (a), that dove avroic k.r.A. 
is contempororaneous with &uaprupnoev, expressing, namely, the mode of it; 
and on (0), that r. 7. xafapicac is previous to the ovdév diéxpive. This is evi- 
dent from the course of the speech, as the faith must have been already 
present before the communication of the Spirit.°— Ver. 10. Accordingly as 
the matter now stands (viv obv). — ri meıpalere Tov Ocdv ;] i.e. why do ye put 
it to the test, whether God will abandon His attestation of non-observance 
already given to the Gentiles, or assert His punitive power against human 
resistance? ‘‘ Apostrophe ad Pharisäos et severus elenchus,’’ Bengel. — 
éxifeivat| with the design to impose, ete. — Cvyév] comp. Gal, v. 1, and Chry- 
sostom in loc. : ro Tov Cvyov ovöuarı Td Bap Tov mpayuaroc, of the complete ob- 
servance of the law, auroic évdeixvura. Contrast to this yoke : Matt. xi. 29, 
30. — oi mar£pec nu] since the time of Moses. 

Ver. 11. ’AA@2a] A triumphant contrast to the immediately preceding öv 
obre of marépec muav ovTe music loxvo. Baor. — dia THC yap.t. Kup. ’I.]® Not 
elsewhere used by Peter. In triumphant contrast to the yoke of the law, 
it is here placed first. — kaf’ dv rpörov kakeivor] sc. riorevovoı cwbpvat dıa THC 
The éxeivoc are the Gentile-Christians, to whom the 

Others, Calvin, Calovius, Wolf, and many older 


yapitog Tov Kup. 'Inoov. 
whole debate relates. 


14 Sam. xvi. 9, 10; 1 Kings viii. 16; 1 
Chron, xxviii. 4,5; Neh. ix. 7, and the LXX. 
at those places. So also Ewald. 

2 Comp. 1. 24. 

3 Comp. x. 44, x1. 15 ff. 

4 Weiss, Petr. Lehrbegr. p. 321, thinks that 
it is in the ceremonial sense, so that the idea 
only allusively passes over into that of ethical 


cleansing. But ras kapdias points only to the 
moral sphere. Comp. Weiss himself, p. 274 f. 
This moral cleansing presupposes, moreover, 
the reconciliation appropriated by faith; see 
1 Pet. 1. 18. 

5 Comp. xi. 17. 

6 Comp. Rom. v. 15, i. 7; 1 Cor. i. 3; 2 Cor. 
1, 2, xiii. 18 ; Eph. i.2; Phil. i. 2; 2 Thess. i. 2, 


286 CHAP. XY., 12-17. 


commentators, following Augustine, against Pelagius, make it apply to 
mar£peg yuov. Incorrectly, as the salvation of the Jewish fathers, servati 
‚Fuerunt is supplied, is quite alien from the question concerning the owrnpia 
of the Gentile-Christians here. But the complete equalization of both 
parties is most fitly brought out at the close; after its having been pre- 
viously said, they as well as we, it is now said, we as well as they. Thus the 
equalizing is formally complete.—That Peter in the doctrine of the right- 
eousness of faith was actually as accordant with Paul as he here expresses 
himself, is, in opposition to Baur, Schwegler, Hilgenfeld, and Zeller, to be 
inferred even from Gal. ii. 15 ff., where Paul acknowledges his and Peter’s 
common conviction, after he had upbraided the Jatter, ver. 14 for the 
inconsistency of his conduct at Antioch.! 7 

Ver. 12. The result of this speech was that the whole assembled multi- 
tude (mäv 76 mAndoc) was silent, so that thus a new ov/jryo:c did not begin, 
and the agitation of the opponents was set at rest. A happy beginning 
for the happy issue. Now Barnabas and Paul could without contradiction 
confirm the view of Peter by the communication of their own apostolic 
experiences among the Gentiles, —Barnabas jirst, on account of his older 
and closer relation to the church. Comp. on ver. 25. — onueia k. r£para] 
Comp. generally also Rom. xv. 19; 2 Cor. xii. 12, hence so much the less 
improbable (Zeller). 

Ver. 13. When these had finished speaking (o:yjoa), James, not the son 
of Alphaeus, but the brother of the Lord (xii. 17), a strict legalist, and highly 
esteemed in Jerusalem as chief leader of the church, delivered his address 
having reference to these matters (azexpi7). He first confirmed, by a 
prophetic testimony, the divine call of the Gentiles brought into promi- 
nence by Peter, vv. 13-17, and then made his conciliatory proposal for 
the satisfaction of both parties— in concise, but all the more weighty 
language (0°). 

Vv. 14-17. Zvueöv] formed after the Hebrew }\YDW,? while the more 
usual Ziuwv* corresponds to the Rabbinical }1n°d. In the Talmud also 
both forms of the name are used side by side. Moreover, the original 
name of Peter was still the current one in the church of Jerusalem.‘ 
We are not to think of any intentional use of it in this passage, that 
Peter was not here to be regarded according to his apostolic dignity, 
Baumgarten. — éreoxéy. AaB. && iv. Aadv To dv. aurov] he looked to, took 
care for, the receiving from the Gentiles a people for His name, i.e. apeople 
of God, a people that bore the name of God as their ruler and proprietor. 
‘‘Egregium paradoxon,’’ Bengel.*— Ver. 15. rotrw] neuter: and with this, 
namely, with this fact expressed by Aaßeiv & ever x.7.A., agree, ete. — 
kadoc yéyparta| He singles out from the Aoyoi rov mood. a passage, comp. 
xx. 35, in conformity with which that agreement takes place, namely, 
Amos ix. 11, 12, quoted freely by Luke after the LXX. Amos predicts 


1 Comp. on Gal. /.c. ; also Baumgarten, p. 3 1 Chron. iv. 20. 
430 f. ; Lekebusch, p. 300 ff. 4 Comp. on Luke xxiv. 34. 
a2 Petit. 1; LXX. Gen.) xxix. 838; Luke ii. 5 Comp. xviii. 10; Rom. ix, 24-26. 


25, iii. 30; Acts xili. 1; Rev. vii. 7. 


ADDRESS OF JAMES. 287 


the blessed Messianic era, in which not only the Davidic theocracy, fallen 
into decay by the division of the Kingdom, will be again raised up, ver. 
16, but also foreign nations will join themselves to it and be converted 
to the worship of Jehovah. According to the theocratic character of 
this prophecy, it has found its Messianic historical fulfilment in 
the reception of the Gentiles into Christianity, after that thereby 
the Davidic dominion, in the higher and antitypical sense of the Son 
of David (Luke i. 32), was re-established? — yeré taira] Hebrew and 
LXX, : év 7H juépa éxeivy. The meaning is the same : after the pre-Messianic 
penal judgments, in the day of the Messianic restoration. — dvacrpéyw Kai 
avorxodoujow| Jehovah had withdrawn from His people ; but now He promises 
by the prophet : I will return and build again the fallen, by desolation, taber- 
nacle of David. Many assume the well-known Hebraism: iterwm (NS) 
aedificabo. This would only be correct were MVUN in the original ; but there 
stands only D’'PS, and in the LXX. only avacrjow; and the idea of iterum 
is very earnestly and emphatically presented by the repetition of ävorkod. and 
by avop#. — ryv oxnviv Aavid] The residence of David, the image of the the- 
ocracy, is represented as a torn down and decayed tabernacle, ‘* quia ad mag- 
nam tenuitatem res ejus redactae erant,’? Bengel. — örwc] not the result, 
but the design, with which what is promised in ver. 16 is to take place.— 
oi kararoıroı rov aup.] i.e. the Gentiles. The LXX., who certainly had before 
them another reading (MT AX DIN DANY wrt 13799), deviate consider- 
ably from the original text, which runs: DIS WINNS wT 1399, that 
they may possess the remainder of Edom ; the remainder, for Amaziah had again 
subdued only a part of it, 2 Kings xiv. 7. As xai mavra ta vn k.7.A. fol- 
lows, James might have used even these words, as they are in the original, 
for his object,’ and therefore no set purpose is to be assumed for his having 
given them according to the reading of the LXX. Perhaps they were only 
known to him and remembered in that reading ; but possibly also they are 
only rendered in this form by Luke, or the Greek document used by him, 
without being so uttered by James, who spoke in Hebrew. — xai rävra ra 
&dvn k.7.2.] kai after oi karaA. r. avip. is neeessarily explicative, and indeed, 
and the emphasis of this more precise definition lies on zavra ; but the fol- 
lowing éo’ vic has an argumentative purpose: they upon whom, i.e. seeing that, 
indeed, upon all the Gentiles, etc. — é' ob¢ érixéxA. T. dv. wov] quite a He- 
brew expression :? upon whom co oy . . « WR) is named, is uttered as nam- 
ing them, my name, namely, as the name of their Lord, after whom they are 
designated, so that they are called ‘‘ God’s people.’** They have the name 
already, inasmuch as the predicted future * is conceived as having already 
taken place, and as existing, in the counsel of God ; a praeteritum prophe- 


2) 


ticum, as in Jas. v. 2,3. The view, in itself inadmissible, of Hitzig and 


1 Comp. Hengstenberg, Christol. 1. p. 456. kakeıv as denoting an accessory naming, comp. 
2Gesenius, 7’es. III. p. 1282. especially Herod. viii. 44 (obvonagönevor . . . 
3The Greek would say: ot xexAnvraı (or EererAn@noav). Comp.Jas. ii. 7; Deut. xxviii. 
Emırexinvraı) TO Svoua pov, OF ols KexAnTat TO 10; Isa.)xiii. 19 ; Jer. xiv. 9; Dan. ix. 19; Bar. 
Övona mov, Or even Eb’ ols kerAnrarı 7. 6. u. On ii. 15; 2 Macc. viii. 15. 
erıxakeiv, to be distinguished from the simple 4 Comp. Rom. ix. 25 f. 


288 CHAP. Xv., 18-20. 


others: “over whom my name, asthat of their conqueror, has been formerly 
named,” was certainly not that of James. — én’ auroöc] is here to be ex- 
plained not from the Greek use of the repetition of the pronoun,! but as an 
imitation of the Hebrew.? — 6 roıöv tavta yrwora ar’ aidvoc| Such is to be 
considered as the original text ; the other words, ver. 18, are to be deleted. 
See the critical remarks. The Lord who does these things, the rebuilding of 
the theocracy and the conversion of all Gentiles designed by it—known from 
the beginning. The yvoora ax’ aiavoc added to the prophetic words are not 
to be considered as the speaker’s own significant gloss accompanying the pro- 
phetic saying, for such a gloss would not have been so directly or so curtly 
added ; but as part of the scriptural passage itself. The words must at that 
time either have belonged to the original text, as it presented itself to James, 
or to the text of the LXX., as Luke gives it, or to both, as areading which 
is now no longer extant ;* whereas there is now at the conclusion of ver. 
il ody YD (LXX.: cafe ai nuepaı Tov aidvoc). — yrwora] equivalent to 
yvocra övra, and therefore without an article. By whom they were known 
from the beginning, is evident from the context, namely, by God who ac- 
complishes them (ro:öv) in the fulness of time. He accordingly carries into 
effect nothing, which has not been from the beginning evident to Him in 
His consciousness and counsel ; how important and sacred must they conse- 
quently appear! As Bengel well remarks: ‘‘ ab aeterno scivit ; quare non 
debemus id tanquam novum et mirum fugere.’’ Erroneously de Wette ren- 
ders: what was known of old, through the prophets. Opposed to this is ar’ 
alövoc, which also means from the very beginning in iii. 21 and Luke i. 70; 
and how unimportant and superfluous would the thought itself be ! : 
Vv. 19, 20 (29). "Eyö] For my part I vote. — rapevoyieiv] to trouble them 
withal, at their conversion.* — érioteiAa abtoic tov ar&xeodaı] to despatch a 
writing to them® that they should abstain—aim of the Emıoreilar. — ard Tov 
aAtoynudtwv| may be referred either to ror eidoiwov only, or to all the follow- 
ing particulars. The latter, as aro is not repeated with r7c mopveiac, is the 
more natural : therefore : from the pollutions, which are contracted through 
idols and through fornication, ete. arioynua, from the Alexandrian adoyeiv, 
polluere,° is a word entirely foreign to the other Greck ; therefore Hesychius 
explains it merely in reference to its present connection with rov eidwAwv : 
aAıoynuarwv' THC peTaAHWews TOV wapav Bvorwv. — rov eidddAwv| What James 
meant by the general expression, ‘‘pollutions of idols,’’ was known to 
his hearers, and is evident from ver. 29, where the formally composed 
decree required as unambiguous a designation as possible, and there- 
fore eidwiofirwv is chosen; hence: pollutions occasioned by partaking of 
the flesh of heathen sacrifices (Ex. xxxiv. 45). The Gentiles were accus- 





1 Fritzsche, Quaest. Luc. p. 109 f. ; Göttling, 
ad. Callim. p. 19 f. 

2 Buttmann, neutest. Gramm. p. 240 f. (E. 
T. 280). 

3 Comp. Ewald, p, 4%2, who would, how- 
ever, read yvworov an’ aiwvos TO Epyov avrov, 


4Dem. 242. 16; Polyb. i. 8. 1, iii. 58. 6s 


Plut. Timol. 8; frequently also in the LXX., 
both with the dative and the accusative. 

5 Heb. xiii. 22 ; often with Greek writers, 
see Loesner, p. 207. 

6 LXX. Dan. i. 8; Mal.i. 7, 12; Ecclus. xl. 
29; Sturz, de Dial. Al. p. 145; Korai on Jsocr. 
D. 299. 


ADDRESS OF JAMES. 289 


tomed to consume so much of the sacrificed animals as was not used 
for the sacrifice itself and did not belong to the priests, in feasts, in 
the temple or in their houses, or even to sell it in the shambles.! Both 
modes of partaking of flesh oflered in sacrifice, for which the Gentile- 
Christians had opportunity enough either by invitations on the part of their 
heathen friends or by the usual practice of purchase, were to be avoided 
by them as fellowship with idolatry, and thus as polluting Christian sanctity. 
— xai tie mopveiac] As in the decree, ver. 29, the same expression is repeated 
without any more precise definition, and a regulative ordinance, particularly 
in such an important matter, proceeding from general collegiate delibera- 
tion, presupposes nothing but unambiguous and well-known designations 
of the chief points in question ; no other explanation is admissible than 
that of fornication generally,*? and accordingly all explanations are to be 
discarded, which assume either a metaphorical meaning or merely a single 
form of ropveia ; namely: (1) that it denotes figuratively idolatry, and that 
merely the indirect idolatry, which consists in the partaking of eidwAobitwr, 
so that rov &idwA. and t7¢ wopv. form only one point—so, entirely opposed to 
the order in ver. 29, Beza, Selden, Schleusner ; (2) that it is the fornication 
practised at the heathen festivals, so Morus, Dindorf, Stolz, Heinrichs ; (3) 
that the ropvix7 Avoia is meant, the gains of prostitution offered in sacrifice, 
Heinsius and Ittig ; or (4) the ‘‘actus professionis meretriciae, in fornice 
stantis viri vel mulieris mercede pacta prostitutae et omnium libidini 
patentis,’’ Salmasius ; or (5) the coneubinage common among the Gentiles, 
Calvin ; or (6) the nuptiae intra gradus prohibitos,* incest ;* or (7) marriage 
with a heathen husband ;° or (8) deuterogamy.° Bentley has even recourse to 
conjectural emendation, namely, yorpefac or roprelac (swine’s flesh). Such 
expedients are only resorted to, because all the other particulars are not im- 
moral in themselves, but adıaoopa, which only become immoral through the 
existing circumstances. But the association of roprveia with three adiaphora 
is to be explained from the then moral corruption of heathenism, by which. 
fornication, regarded from of old with indulgence and even with favour, 
nay, practised without shame even by philosophers, and surrounded by 
poets with all the tinsel of lasciviousness, had become in public opinion a) 
thing really indifferent.’ Compare the system of Hetaerae in Corinth, 


1 See on 1 Cor. viii. 1; also Hermann, got- 
tesd. Alterth. § xxviii. 22-24. 

2 But that the apostles had here in viewa 
sanctification of marriage by the cognizance 
or approval of the rulers of the church, so 
that the germ of the ecclesiastical nuptial 
ceremony is to be found here, is very arbi- 
trarily assumed by Lange, apost. Zeitalt. IL. 
p. 185. 

3 Lightfoot, comp. Hammond. 

4 Gieseler in Staeudlin and Tzschirner’s 
Archiv. IV. p. 812; Baur, I. p. 162, ed. 2; 
Ritschl, altkath. Kirche, p. 129; Zeller, p. 
246; Sepp, and others; also Wieseler, who, 
however, on Gai. p. 149, takes it generally, 


and only treats incest as included. 

5 Hering in the Bibl. nov. Brem. IV. p. 289 
ff. Teller. 

6 Schwegler, nachapost Zeitalt. I. p. 127. 

7 That even among the heathen the sinful- 
ness of sexual abuse was recognised (as Hof- 
mann, heil. Schr. N. 7'. I. p. 131, objects), 
makes no difference as regards the whole of 
their moral attitude and tendency. Voices 
of earnest and thoughtful men in Greece and 
Rome were raised against ail vices. Hofmann 
attaches to the notion of ropveia: a width 
which the word, as actually used, has not: 
“Unbridledness of natural sexual conduct, 
which neither knows nor desires to know 


290 CHAP. XV., 20. 


Rome, etc., and the many forms of the worship of Aphrodite in the Greek 
world.! Baumgarten, Ewald, Bleek, Weiss have with reason retained the 
proper and in the N. T. prevailing literal sense of ropveia. — kal tov mvıkrov] 
i.e. the flesh of such beasts as are killed by strangling, strangulation by snares, 
and the like, and from which the blood is not let out.” This is based on Lev. 
xvii. 13, 14, Deut. xii. 16, 23, according to which the blood was to be let 
out from every hunted animal strangled, and without this letting out of 
blood the flesh was not to be eaten.* That the prohibition here refers to 
Roman epicurism (e.g. to the eating of fowls suffocated in Falernian wine), 
is very inappropriately assumed by Schneckenburger, especially considering 
the humble position of most of the Gentile-Christians. — kai rov aiuaroc] 
denotes generally any partaking of blood, in whatever form it might be 
found.* The prohibition of eating blood, even yet strictly observed by the 
Jews,° is not to be derived from the design of the lawgiver to keep the 
people at a distance from all idolatry—as is well known, the sacrificing 
Gentiles ate blood and drank it mingled with wine °—or from sanitary con- 
siderations, but from the conception expressly set forth in Gen. ix. 6, Lev. 
xvii. 11, xiii. 14, Deut. xii. 23, 24, that the blood is that which contains ‘‘ the 
soul of all flesh.’? On this also depended the prohibition of things strangled, 
because the blood was still in them, which, as the vehicle of life, was not 
to be touched as food, but was to be poured out,” and not to be profaned by 
eating.® The very juxtaposition of the two points proves that Cyprian, 
Tertullian, and others,® erroneously explain aiua of homicidium. With the 
deep reverence of the Hebrews for the sanctity of blood was essentially 
connected the idea of blood-sacrifice ; and therefore the prohibition of 
partaking of blood, in respect of its origin and importance—it was accom- 
panied with severe penalties—was very different from the prohibition of un- 
clean animals. !° 

The following general observations are to be made on ver. 20 compared 
with ver. 29:—1. The opinion of James and the resolution of the 
assembly is purely negative; the Gentile brethren were not to be sub- 
jected to rapevoyieiv, but they were expected merely azéyeofa, and that 
from four matters, which according to the common Gentile opinion were 
regarded as indifferent, but were deeply offensive to the rigidly legal 
Jewish-Christians. The moral element of these points is here accordingly 
left entirely out of account; the design of the prohibition refers only 
to the legal strictness of the Jewish-Christians, between whom and the 


moral restriction.” Thus the word, in his witnesses in favour of these words. 


view, applies not only to sexual intercourse in 
relationship, but also to sexwal conduct in 
marriage (9. Grotius tm loc., Hermann, 
Privatalterth. § 29, 13 ff. 

1 See also on 1 Cor. vi. 12. 

2 The omission of cat trod mvırrov in D and 
Fathers, though approved by Bornemann 
(here and in ver. 29), can only be regarded as 
a copyist’s error occasioned by Homoioteleuton 


(kat Tov... kat Tod). So decisive are the 


3 Comp. Schoettgen in loc. 

4 Ley. iii. 17, vii. 26, xvii. 10. xix.26 ; Deut. 
xii. 16,.23 f., xv. 23. 

5 Saalschütz, Mos. R. p. 262 f. 

6 Michaelis, Mos. R. IV. § 206. 

7 Lev. xvii. 13; Deut. xii. 15 ff. 

® See Ewald, Alterth. pp. 51, 197; Delitzsch, 
bibl. Psych. p. 242 f£. 

9 See Wolf in loc. 

10 Comp. also Bahr, Symbol. II. p. 240. 


THINGS FORBIDDEN. 291 


Gentile-Christians the existing dispute was to be settled, and the fellow- 
ship of brotherly intercourse was to be provisionally restored. The 
"Gentile-Christian, for the avoidance of offence towards his Jewish brother, 
was to abstain as well from that which exhibited the fundamental char- 
acter of heathenism — pollutions of idols and fornication'—as from those 
things by which, in the intercourse of Christian fellowship, the most 
important points of the restrictions on food appointed by God for Israel 
might be prematurely overthrown, to the offence of the Jewish-Christians. 
—-2. That precisely these four points are adduced, and neither more nor 
other, is simply to be explained from the fact, that historically, and 
according to the experience of that time, next to circumcision these 
were the stumbling-blocks in ordinary intercourse between the two sec- 
tions of Christians; and not, as Olshausen and Ebrard, following many 
‚older commentators, suppose,* from the fact that they were accustomed 
to be imposed on the proselytes of the gate in the so-called seven precepts 
of Noah,’ and that the meaning of the injunction is, that the Gentile- 
Christians had no need to become proselytes of righteousness by circum- 
cision, but were only obliged to live as proselytes of the gate, or at least 
were to regard-themselves as placed in a closer relation and fellowship to 
the Jewish people (Baumgarten). Were this the case, we cannot see why 
the decree should not have attached itself more precisely and fully to the 
Noahic precepts,‘ to which not a single one of the‘four points expressed 
belonged ; and therefore the matter has nothing at all in common with the 
proselytism of the gate.°— 3. That the proposal of James, and the decree 
drawn up in accordance with it, were to have no permanent force as a rule 
of conduct, is clear from the entire connection in which it arose. It was 
called forth by the circumstances of the times; it was to be a compromise 
as long as these circumstances lasted ; but its value as such was extin- 
guished of itself by the cessation of the circumstances—namely, as soon as 
the strengthening of the Christian spirit, and of the Christian moral 
freedom of both parties, rendered the provisional regulation superfluous. ° 
Therefore Augustine strikingly remarks (c. Manich. 32.13): ‘* Hlegisse 
mihi videntur pro tempore rem facilem et nequaquam observantibus onerosam, 
in qua cum Israelitis etiam gentes propter angularem illum lapidem duos in se 
condentem aliquid communiter observarent. Transacto vero illo tempore, quo 
illi duo parietes, unus de eircumeisione alter de praeputio venientes, guamvis 
in angulari lapide concordarent, tamen suis quibusdam proprietatibus distine- 
tius eminebant, ac ubi ecclesia gentium talis effecta est, ut in ea nullus Israelita 
carnalis appareat : quis jam hoc Christianus observat, ut turdas vel minutiores 
aviculas non attingat, nisi quarum sanguis effusus est, aut leporem non edat, 


1 Comp. on the latter, Rom. i. 21 ff. phemy ; (3) murder ; (4) incest ; (5) robbery ; 
2 Comp. also Ritschl, altkath. K. p. 1295 (6) disobedience to magistrates ; (7) partaking 

Wieseler, p. 185; Holtzmann, Judenth. u. of flesh cut from living animals. 

Christenth. p. 571 f. 6’ Comp. also Oertel, p. 249; Hofmann, A. 
3 See the same in Sanh. 56 @ } ; Maimo- Schr. d. N. T.1.p. 128 ff. 

nides, Tr. Melach. 9. 1. 6° Comp. Ritschl, altkath. K. p. 138 f. 


4 These forbade: (1) idolatry; (2) blas- 


292 CHAP. xa, AL 


si manu a cervice percussus nullo eruento vulnere occisus est? Ht qui forte 
pauci tangere ista formidant, a caeteris irridentur, ita omnium animos in hae 
re tenuit sententia veritatis.” In contrast to this correct view stand the 
Canon. apost. 63 (et rıc Eriokoroc 7 TpecBvtepog 7 Stakovoc 7 OAw¢ Tod KaraAdyov TOU 
ieparıkod dayn Kpéa év aiuate buxjc avrov, 7 Onpiddwrov 7 Gvyotuaiov, kadaıpei- 
dw" Tovro yap 6 véuocg ameimev. Ei dé Aaiköc ein, aoopitéodo), and not less the 
Clementine Homilies, vii. 4, and many Fathers in Suicer, Thes. I. p. 
113, as also the Concil. Trull. I. Can. 67, and exegetical writers cited 
in Wolf.! It is self-evident withal, that not only the prohibition of 
xopveia, but also the general moral tenor and fundamental thought of 
the whole decree, the idea of Christian freedom, to the use of which 
merely relative limits given in the circumstances, and not an absolute ethi- 
cal limitation, must be assigned, have permanent validity, such as Paul ex- 
hibited in his conduct and teaching. —4. The Tiibingen criticism, finding in 
Gal. ii. the Archimedean point for its lever, has sought to relegate the whole 
narrative of the apostolic council and its decree to the unhistorical sphere ;? 
because the comparison with Gal. ii. exhibits contradictions, which cause 
the narrative of the Actsto be recognized as an irenic fiction. It is alleged, 
namely, that by its incorrect representation the deeply seated difference be- 
tween the Jewish-Christianity of the original apostles and Paulinism free 
from the law was to be as much as possible concealed, with a view to 
promote union. Holtzmann* more cautiously weighs the matter, but still 
expresses doubt.* The contradictions, which serve as premisses for the 
attack upon our narrative, are not really present in Gal. ii. 1 ff. For—and 
these are the most essential points in the question—in Gal. ii. Paul narrates 
the matter not in a purely historical interest, but in personal defence of his 
apostolic authority, and therefore adduces incidents and aspects of what 
happened at Jerusalem, which do not make it at all necessary historically 
to exclude our narrative. Moreover, even in Gal. ii. the original apostles 
are not in principle at variance, but at one, with Paul ;’ as follows from ver. 
6, from the reproach of hypocrisy made against Peter, vv. 12, 13, which 
supposes an agreement in conviction between him and Paul, from the 


1 Comp. also the Erlangen Zeitschr. f. Pro- 
test. u. K., July 1851, p.53, where the ab- 
stinence from things strangled and from blood 
is reckoned as a‘‘precipitate on the part of 
the external Levitical ordinances” to be pre- 
served in the church. 

2 See besides, Baur, I. 119 ff. ed. 2, Schweg- 
ler, Zeller, Holsten, especially Hilgenfeld in 
Comm. z. Br. an d. Gal., and in his Zeitschr. 
SF. wiss. Theol. 1858, p. 317 f£., 1860, p. 118 £f., 
Kanon u. Krit. d. N. T. p. 188 ff. 

3 Judenth. und Christenth. p. 568 ff. 

* Fora defence of its historical character, 
see Wieseler, Chronol. p. 189 ff., and in his 
Comm. z. Br. an d. Gal.—who, however, still 
(see the article “ Galaterbrief” in Herzog’s 
Encykl. XIX.) identifies the journey in Gal. ii. 


with that mentioned in Acts xviii. 21 f., an 
opinion which it is impossible to maintain, 
comp. on Gal. il.1; Ebrard, § 125; Baum- 
garten, p. 401 ff.; Schaff, Gesch. d. apost. 
K.p. 252 ff.,ed. 2; Schneckenburger in the 
Stud. u. Krit. 1855, p. 551 ff. ; Lechler, apost. 
u.nachapost. Zeitalt. p. 396 ff. (also in the 
Stud. d. Würtemb. Geistl. 1847, 2, p. 94 ff.) ; 
Lange, apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 103 ff. ; Thiersch, 
p. 127 ff. ; Lekebusch, p. 296 ff. ; Ewald, p. 469 
ff. ; Ritschl, altkath. K. p. 148 ff.; Hofmann, 
heil. Schr. N. T.1. p. 127 ff., who, however, 
calls to his aid many incorrect interpretations 
of passages in the Epistle to the Galatians ; 
Trip, Z.c. p. 92 ff.; Oertel, Paul in d. Apostel- 
gesch. p. 226 ff. 
5 Comp. Bleek, Beitr. p. 253 f. 


REASONS FOR RESTRICTIONS. 293 
edvuröc Cc, ver. 14, and from the speech in common, ver. 16 fl.! Further, 
in Gal. ii. Paul is not contrasted with the original apostles in respect of 
doctrine, for the circumcision of Titus was not demanded by them, but as 
regards the field of their operations in reference to the same gospel, ver. 9. 
By «ar idiav, again, Gal. ii. 2, is meant a private conference,? which had 
nothing to do with the transactions of our narrative ; nor is the care for 
the poor determined on, Gal. ii. 10, a matter excluding the definitions of 
our decree, particularly as Paul only describes an agreement which had 
been made, not in any sort of public assembly, but merely between him 
and the three original apostles ; the observance of the decree was an inde- 
pendent matter, and was understood of itself. In fine, the absence of any 
mention of the council and decree in the Pauline Epistles, particularly in 
the Epistle to the Galatians, and even in the discussion on meats offered 
in sacrifice, 1 Cor. viii. 10, 23 ff, is completely intelligible from the merely 
interim nature and purpose of the statute; as well as, on the other hand, 
from the independence of his apostleship and the freedom of believers from 
the law, which Paul had to assert more and more after the time of the 
council in his special apostolic labours, and always to lay greater stress on, 
in opposition to the Judaism which ever raised itself anew.* Indeed, the 
very circumstance that the proposals for the decree proceed from James, is 
in keeping with his position as the highly respected head of the Jewish- 
Christians, and is a testimony of his wise moderation, without making him 
answerable* for the Judaistic narrowness and strictness of his followers.°® 
And there could be the less scruple to consent on the part of Paul, as, in 
fact, by this henoticon the non-circumcision of the Gentiles had completely 
conquered, and he thereby saw the freedom and the truth of the gospel 
securely established,° while at the same time the chief vice of heathenism, 
ropveia, Was rejected, and the right application of the other three prohibi- 
tions, in accordance with the yvöcıc and ayary which his Gospel promoted, 
was more and more to be expected in confidence on the Lord and His 
Spirit.” 

Ver. 21.° Tap] gives the reason why it was indispensable to enjoin this 
fourfold aröyeodaı—namely, because the preaching of the Mosaic law, 
taking place from ancient generations in every city every Sabbath day by its 
being read in the synagogues, would only tend to keep alive the offence 
which the Jewish-Christians, who still adhered to the synagogue,’ took to 
their uncircumcised brethren, in view of the complete freedom of the latter 
from the law, including even these four points.!° These words thus assign 


1 See evasions, on account of vmoxprocs, in 
Schwegler and Baur. 

2 Comp. on ver. 6. 

3 See on Gal., Introd. § 3. 

4 Comp. Jas. i. 25, 11. 12. 

5 Gal. ii. 12. 

6 Gal. 1. 3 ff. 

72 Cor. iii. 17; Rom. viii. 15. See, in ad- 
dition, on Gal. ii. 

3 See Düsterdieck in the Gétting Monatschr. 


1849, p. 282 ff. 

9 Comp. Lechler, apost. Zeitalt. p. 291 f. 

10 Lekebusch and Oertel adopt in the main 
this interpretation, to which Calvin already 
came very near. Nor 1s the explanation of 
Diisterdieck essentially different. Yet he un- 
derstands &xeı ın the sense: he has in his 
power, holds ın subjection, which, however, 
appears not to be admissible, as not the Jews 
generally, but the cnpvagovres, are the object 


294 CHAP. XV., 22-24. 

a ground for the proposal on the score of necessity, corresponding to the 
éxavayxec in the decree, ver. 28, and, indeed, of the necessity that there 
must be, at least so far, accommodation to the Mosaic law. Others : 
Teplttov Toi¢ "Iovdaioıs ravra Erior£iieiv' ard Tov vöuov Tavra uavdävovom K.T.A., 
scholion in Matthaei, Chrysostom, Lyra, and many others, and recently 
Neander. Out of place, as there was no question at all about an instruc- 
tion for the Jewish- Christians. Erasmus, Wetstein, Thiersch, and others 
still more arbitrarily import the idea: ‘‘ Neque est metuendum, ut Moses 
propterea antiquetur ;’’ or :' it is not to be feared that the Mosaic law gen- 
erally will be neglected and despised.” Still more freely Gieseler*® reads be- 
tween the lines what is supposed to be meant: “The Mosaic law already 
has been so long preached, and yet there are few who submit to embrace it. 
Now, when the service of the true God is preached without the yoke of the 
law, many are turning to Him, and it is indisputable that the ceremonial 
law is the only obstacle to the universal diffusion of true religion.’’ Lange, 
II. p. 188, likewise imports: ‘‘ We have nothing further to do. To assert 
the statutes of Moses is not our office; there are already preachers for 
that.’? Similarly Hofmann,‘ who, however, discovers under the words of 
James the presupposition as self-evident, that Gentiles, if they pleased, 
might along with the faith embrace also the law of Moses; to those, who 
wished to become Mosaic, nothing need be said about the law, because 
they would always have an opportunity to become acquainted with it. As 
if one could read-in such a very important presupposition as self-evident ! 
And as if Paul and Barnabas could have been silent at a proposition so 
entirely anti-Pauline! Further, we cannot see how what Brenske° finds as 
the meaning, considering the proselytes of the gate as those to whom the 
knpboosıw took place, is contained in the words: the xnpöcceı has the notion 
of publicity and solemnity, but not of novelty (Brenske), which even passages 
such as Gal. v. 11, Rom. ii. 21, should have prevented him from assuming. 
Lastly, Wieseler® finds in the words the designed inference : consequently 
these statutes have for long been not a thing unheard of and burdensome 
for these Gentiles, because there are among them many proselytes. But 
even thus the chief points are mentally supplied (P?). 

Ver. 22. ’Exdefauévovc] is not to be taken, with Beza, Er. Schmid, Kui- 
noel, and others, for éxAeybévrac, as the middle aorist never has a passive 
signification ; on the contrary,’ the correct explanation is, accusative with 
the infinitive : after they should have, not had, chosen men from among them, 


adopted the explanation of Gieseler. But in 
the second edition, I. p. 137, he interprets it 


of éye. It is the simple: he has them, they 
do not fail him. 


1 So Grotius and Ewald, p. 472. 

2 Thus in substance also Schneckenburger, 
Zeller, Baumgarten, Hilgenfeld. Peculiarly 
ingenious, but importing whatis not in the 
text, is the view of Bengel: ‘‘ Prophetas 
citavi, non Mosen, cujus consensus est aper- 
tior,’’ holding that James had Deut. xxxii. 21 
in view. 

3In Stäudlin und Tzschirner’s Archiv. f. 
Kirchengesch. IV. p. 312. Baur, ed. 1, also 


as if James wished to say: “a worship so 
ancient as the Mosaic is perfectly entitled to 
such a demand.” This, however, is m no way 
contained in the words, in which, on the 
contrary, the point is the ancient preaching 
and the constant reading. 

4 Schriflbew. II. 2, p. 41. 

5 Stud. u. Krit. 1859, p. 711 ff. 

6 On Gal. ii. 11 ff., p. 148. 

7 Comp. vez. 40. 


DECISION OF COUNCIL. 295 


to send them, i.e. to choose and to send men." — Nothing further is known of 
Judas Barsabas, whom Grotius and Wolf consider as a brother of Joseph 
Barsabas, i. 23. Ewald considers him as identical with the person named 
in x. 23. Concerning Silas, .e. Silvanus,? the apostolic companion of Paul 
on his journeys in Asia Minor and Greece,® see Cellar. de Sila viro apost., 
Jena, 1773 ; Leyrer in Herzog’s Encykl. XIV. p.369. These two men, who 
were of the first rank and influence: among the Christians, were sent to 
Antioch to give further oral explanation, ver. 27. 

Vv. 23, 24. Tpawavrec] while they wrote, should properly agree in case 
with écActauévouve. Anacoluthia in carrying out the construction by partici- 
ples is frequent ; here it conforms to the logical subject of édofe roig x.r.A.° 
— dia yerpd¢ aitav| so that they were to be the bearers of the letter.—As the 
letter was directed not only to Antioch and to Syria, whose capital and 
chief church was Antioch, but also to Cilicia, we are to infer that in this 
province also similar dissensions between Jewish and Gentile Christians had 
taken place, and had come to the knowledge of the apostolic assembly.— 
The genuineness of the letter is supported as well by its whole form—which, 
with all distinctness as to the things forbidden, the designation of which 
is repeated exactly in xxi. 25, yet has otherwise so little official circumstan- 
tiality, that it evidently appears intended to be orally supplemented as re- 
gards the particulars—as also by the natural supposition that this impor- 
tant piece of writing would soon be circulated in many copies (xxi. 25), and 
therefore might easily, in an authentic form, pass into the collection of 
Luke’s sources.° — kai oi ddeAgoi] i.e. the whole church, ver. 22 (Q?). — 
Xaipew] the well-known epistolary salutation of the Greeks.” The letter 
addressed to Greek Christians was certainly written in Greek. But that 
it was actually composed by James® does not follow at least from Jas. i. 
1, although it is in itself possible, and indeed from his position in Jerusalem 
even probable. The similarity in the expression of the decree with Luke i. 
1, does not justify us in doubting the originality of that expression,’ as the 
subdivision in the protasis and apodosis was very natural, and the use of 
édofev almost necessary. — üvaokevalovrec] destroying, subverting, elsewhere 
neither in the N. T. nor in the LXX. and Apocrypha. — Ayovrec weper£un. | 
without deiv, because in /éy. the sense of commanding is implied.!! — The 
rnpeiv T. vouov is the Zuyöc, ver. 10, which was imposed with circumcision, 
Gal. v. 3. And the vöuoc is the whole law, not merely the ceremonial part. 
—oi¢ ov dueoreih.]| So arbitrarily had they acted. 


1 Comp. Vulg., and see Kypke, II. p. 73; 
Winer, p. 239 (E. T. 319 f.). 

2 See on 2 Cor. i. 19. 

3 xvii. 4, x. 14 f., xviii. 5, also 1 Pet. v. 12. 

4 jyova., comp. Luke xxii. 26. 

5 See Bernhardy, p. 463; Winer, p. 527 (E. 
T. 709) ; also Pflugk, ad Hur. Hec. 970. 

® According to Schwanbeck, the letter is 
derived from the ‘‘Memoirs of Silas,’’ In 
this view, of course, it must be assumed that 
@vöpas yovp., ver. 22, did not stand in the 


text at all, or not here. 

7 See Otto in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1867, 
p. 678 ff. Comp. xxiii. 26. 

8 Bengel, Bleek in the Stud. w. Krit. 1836, 
p. 1037. 

9 Schwegler, Zeller. 

10 But see Xen. Cyr. vi.2. 25; Polyb. ix. 31. 
6, ix. 32. 8; Dem. 895.5. ‘Non parcunt iis, 
qui dubitationes invexerant,” Bengel. 

11 Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. v. 7. 34. Comp. 
on xiv. 14. 


296 CHAP. XY., 25-35. 


Vv. 25-28. Tevouévoe suod maddy] after we had become unanimous. Thus 
it was not a mere majority of voices: ‘‘non parum ponderis addit deereto 
concors sententia,’’ Grotius. On yiveoda: with an adverb in the sense of a 
predicate, see Bernhardy, p. 337. Comp. on John ji. 15. — BapraB. x. HaiAw] 
This order, after chap. xiii. almost always inverted, is justly regarded by 
Bleek as a proof of fidelity to the documentary source. The placing of 
Barnabas first was very natural to the apostles and to the church in Jerusa- 
lem, on the ground of the older apostolic position of the man who in fact 
first introduced Paul himself to the apostles. Also at xiv. 14, xv. 12, this pre- 
cedence has its ground in the nature of the circumstances. — avdp@roıg k.7.A. | 
men who have given up, exposed to the danger of death, their soul for the 
name, for its glorification, v. 41, of our Lord Jesus Christ. rapad. ryv poyiy, 
the opposite of déAew cdca r. duxyyv, Luke ix. 24, is not to be identified 
with rvdéva r. ıb., and the two are not to be explained from the Hebrew 
v5) DW, in opposition to Grotius, Kuinoel, Olshausen.? The purpose of 
these words of commendation is the attestation of the complete confidence 
of the assembly in the Christian fidelity, proved by such love to Christ, of 
the two men who had been sent from Antioch, and who perhaps had been 
slandered by the Judaistic party as egotistic falsifiers of the gospel.* 
Comp. Grotius. — kai abroüc x.7.4.] who also themselves, i.e. in person, along 
with this our written communication, make known the same thing orally.*— 
arayyéAd.| stands not for the future, against Grotius, Hammond, Heinrichs, 
Kuinoel, but realizes as present the time when Judas and Silas deliver the 
letter and add their oral report. — ra ara] namely, what we here inform you 
of by letter. Neander takes it otherwise : the same, that Barnabas and Paul 
have preached to you, namely, that faith in the Redeemer, even ‘‘ without 
the observance of the law, suflices,”’ ete. Against this view did Aöyov is de- 
cisive, by which ra aira necessarily retains its reference to what was com- 
municated by leiter. — ro dyiw mvevpate xat juiv] The agreement of the 
personal activity of the advisers themselves with the illuminating and con- 
firming influence of the Holy Spirit experienced by them when advising.* 
Comp. v. 32. Well does Calovius remark : ‘‘ Conjungitur causa principalis 
et ministerialis decreti.’’ Olshausen supposes that it is equivalent to r@ 
ay. mv. év juiv. Just as arbitrarily and erroneously, Grotius, Piscator, and 
many others hold that there is here a év dua dvoiv, nobis per Sp. St. Neander : 
through the Holy Spirit we also, like Paul and Barnabas, have arrived at the per- 
ception. To this is opposed &do£e, which, in accordance with ver. 22, must 
necessarily denote the determination of the council, and therefore forbids 
the reference of the «ai juiv to Paul and Barnabas, which reference, at any 
rate, see before on 7a aura, is remote from the context. — 7uiv] includes, 
according to vv. 22, 23, also the church, to which, of course, Bellarmin and 


1 Comp. Plat. Prot. p. 312 C. Paul. 
2 See on John x. 11. 4 Sua Aöyov, see Raphel, Polyd. 
3 According to Zeller, p. 246, these com- 5 Ewald, p. 476, appropriately remarks: 


mendatory words are calculated bythe author ‘* The mention of the Holy Spirit, ver. 28, is 
for his readers, as indeed the whole book is the most primitive Christian thing imagina- 
held to be only a letter of commendation for ble.” 


u 


LETTER SENT. 297 


other Catholics concede only the consensus taeitus.! — ra £mävaykec] the 
things necessary.” The conjectural emendations, &r’ dvayxy¢® and év ayaraıc,* 
are wholly unnecessary. That &ravayrec? is an adverb, see in Schaefer. *® 
The necessity here meant is not a necessity for salvation (Zeller), but a 
necessity conditioned by the circumstances of the time. See on ver. 20 f. 

Ver. 29. The points mentioned in ver. 20 are here arranged more accu- 
rately, so that the three which refer to food are placed together. — aré- 
xeodaı] is in ver. 20, as in 1 Thess. iv. 3, v. 22, Ecclus. xxviii. 8, and fre- 
quently in the LXX., joined with azé; but here, as usually among Greek 
writers, only with the genitive. The two differ “non quoad rem ipsam, 
sed modo cogitandi, ita ut in priori formula sejunctionis cogitatio ad rem, 
in posteriori autem ad nos ipsos referatur.’’? —é& éy diatypoivtec éavtoic] 
From which, i.e., at a distance from, without fellowship with them, ye care- 
Fully keeping yourselves.°— eb mpafere] not: ye shall do well —so usually, 
also de Wette, comp. x. 33 — but, as also Hofmann interprets it according 
to the usus loquendi,® ye shall fare well, namely, by peace and unity in 
Christian fellowship. Quite incorrectly, Elsner, Wolf, Krebs, Kuinoel have 
understood the meaning as equivalent to cwiSfcecde, which egregiously and 
injuriously mistakes the apostolic spirit, that had nothing in common 
with the ob divacde cwdjva of the strict legalists. — éppwode| the epistolary 
valete.!° 

Vv. 31, 32. ’Em rn maparınoeı] for the consolation, which the contents of 
the letter granted to them. They now saw Christian liberty protected and 
secured, where the abrupt demand of the Jewish-Christians had formerly 
excited so much anxiety. The meaning cohortatio, arousing address,!! is 
less suitable to the contents of the letter and to the threatening situation 
in which they had been placed. — cai auroi] is to be explained in keeping 
with ver. 27; and so to be connected, not, as is usually done, with zpod. 
övrec, as they also, as well as Paul and Barnabas, were prophets, but with 
dıa Adyou 7. maperdA. x.7.A. Judas and Silas also personally, as the letter by 
writing, comforted and strengthened the brethren by much discourse, which 
they could the more do, since they were prophets.” The rapexadAecav must be 
interpreted like zapaxAjoe:, and so not cohortabantur, as usually." 

Vv. 33-35. Iloveiv xpövov] to spend a time. *— uer’ eipyvnc] i.e. so that wel- 
Fre (DV) was bidden to accompany them, amidst good wishes. A refer- 


1 See, on the contrary, Calovius. D: ei ed mparrovaıv adırovvres, Dem. 469. 14: 


2 Bernhardy, p. 328; Kypke, II. p. 75 f. 

3 Salmasius. 

4 Bentley. 

5 Herod. i. 82; Plat. Pol. vii. p. 536 D, 
Conv. p. 176 E, Dem. 706. 21. 

6 Ad Dem. App. IV. p. 540 f. 

7 Tittmann, Synon. N. T. p. 225. 

8Comp. John xvii. 5; Prov. xxi. 23: 
Starmpei er HAdbews THY WuxXHY avTod ; also the 
corresponding connection with amo, Ps. xii. 
8; Jas. 1 27. 

9 See especially Plat. Adc. i. p. 116 B: öorıs 
KaAQs TPaTTEL, OVXL Kai ed mparreı, Prot. P. 333 


ei Tus GAAOs ED Mev EMoiNTev Vas Ev TPATTwY, 
Plat. Hp. 3, p. 315 B; the opposite, kak@s 
mpacoev, comp. Ellendt, Lex. Soph. U, p. 
629, and Grimm, s.v. ev. 

10 Xen. Cyr. iv. 5. 83; Hipp. ep. p. 1275, 20; 
Artem. iii. 44; 2 Macc. xi. 21, 33, vii. 9. 
Comp. Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 323 f. 

11 Beza, Castalio, and others, 

12 See on xi. 27. 

13 Comp. Vulgate ; and see ver. 27, ra aura. 

14 Dem. 392. 18. See Wetstein and Jacobs, 
ad Anthol. II. 3, p. 44; also Schaefer, ad 
Bos. Hil. p. 413. 


293 CHAP, XV., 36-41. 


ence to the formula of parting : ropetov or iraye eic eiphvnv, Or Ev eiphry! — 
The kai between didacx. and evayy.* is expexegetical. — röv Ady. Tov Kup. | 
see on viii. 25. — At this period, ver. 35, occurs the encounter of Paul with 
Peter (Gal. ii. 11 ff.) The quite summary statement, ver. 35, makes the 
non-mention of this particular incident intelligible enough, and therefore 
there is no reason for the fiction that Luke desired, by the narrative of the 
strife between Paul and Barnabas,* merely to mask the far more important 
difference between him and Peter.* This passing and temporary offence 
had its importance in the special interest of the Epistle to the Galatians, but 
not in the general historical interest of Luke, which was concerned, on 
the other hand, with the separation of Paul and Barnabas and of their 
working. The objections of Wieseler to the assumed coincidence of time ° 
have little weight. In particular, the indefinite statements of time, vv. 
33, 35, 36, allow space enough. — As to the spuriousness of ver. 34, see on 
ver. 40 (R’). 

Ver. 36. Aj] see on xiii. 2. —év aic] because räcav möAı contains a dis- 
tributive plurality.®° — rac Exovoı] how their state is, their internal and exter- 
nal Christian condition. The reference to &mioxen). rovc adeAg. depends on 
well-known attraction. Moreover, Bengel well remarks that rüc éyovo: is 
the nervus visitationis ecclesiasticae. 

(s?.) Vv. 38, 39. But Paul judged it not right" to take with them this one 
who had fallen away from them from Pamphylia, etc.® Observe the uy ovura- 
paAaßeiv standing in sharp opposition to the ovuraparaßeiv of ver. 37, and 
the rovrov significantly repeated at the close. The purposely chosen azo- 
orävra, aud the decisive rejection which Paul founded on this falling away, 
even in opposition to the highly esteemed Barnabas, who did not wish 
to discard his cousin,® proves that the matter was not without grave fault 
on the part of Mark. Fickleness in the service of Christ!’ was to Paul’s 
bold and decided strength of character and firmness in his vocation the 
foreign element, with which he could not enter into any union either 
abstractly or for the sake of public example. —This separation was ben- 
eficial for the church, because Barnabas now chose a sphere of operation 
for himself. Ver. 39; 1 Cor. ix. 6. And as to Mark, certainly both 
the severity of Paul and the kind reception given to him by Barnabas were 
alike beneficial for his ministerial fidelity, Col. iv. 10, 2 Tim. iv. 11. Td 
pév yap TavAov doBepov Emkorperbev aitév' Td dé Bapvaßa ypyorov éroter umkerı 
anoAsıpdmval. “ote wayovrar uev, mpög Ev dE TéAoc aravra Td Képdog (Chrysos- 


ı xvi. 86; Mark v. 34; Luke vii. 50, viii. 8 Comp. xiii. 13. Luke does not mention 
48; Jas. ii. 16. the later reunion (Col. iv. 11; Philem. 24; 
2 The added pera kaı Erep. moAAor, with yet 2 Tim. iv. 11), which, if the view as to the 
many others, shows how very great the field book being intended as a reconciliation of 


of labour at Antioch was. Paulinism and Petrinism were correct, must 
3 vy. 37 ff. occasion great surprise, as Mark wasa disciple 
4 Schrader, Schneckenburger, Baur. of Peter. 
5 On Gal. ii. 11. ® Col. iv. 10. 
6 Winer, p. 134 (E. T. 177). 10 Mark had been ov Xptorov apverdpevos, 


7 n&iov, comp. XXvili. 22; Xen. Anab.v.5. aAAa Tov Spdmov Tov moAUv Kai Bapvv mapaımaa- 
9; Mem. ii. 1. 9. kevos, Oecumenius. 


SEPARATION OF PAUL AND BARNABAS. 299 


tom). — rapofvoudc] an exasperation.' The expression is purposely chosen ; 
it was ook Eydpa ovdé dtAoveckia (Chrysostom). But the thing itself had its 
ground in the avdpwrivn dıavoia according to its relation to the difference of 
the character confronting it, ob yao yoav Aldor 7 EbA01, Chrysostom. 

Vv. 40, 41. "ExiAefauevoc Sidav| after he had chosen Silas as his apostolic 
companion. It is accordingly to be assumed that Silas, ver. 27, after he 
had returned to Jerusalem, ver. 33, and had along with Judas given an 
account of the result of their mission, had in the meantime returned to 
Antioch. But the interpolation, ver. 34 (see the critical remarks), is in- 
correct, as the return of Silas to Jerusalem was a necessary exigency of the 
commission which he had received. zZmiA£yeoda:, in the sense sibi eligere, 
only here in the N. T. ; often in Greek writers, the LXX., and Apocr. — 
mapadod. TH yap. T. Kupiov] committed to the grace of Christ (see the critical 
remarks). Comp. ver. 11. Not different in substance from xiv. 36, but 
here expressed according to a more specifically Christian form. Moreover, 
the notice, compared with ver. 39, leads us to infer, with great probability, 
that the church of Antioch in the dispute before us was on the side of 
Paul. — ryv Sup. «. Kıdır.] as Barnabas, ver. 39, so Paul also betook him- 
self to his native country ; from their native countries the two began their 
new, and henceforth for ever separated, missionary labours. Barnabas 
is unjustly reproached, by Baumgarten, with repairing to his own country, 
instead of to the wide fields of heathenism ; in point of fact, we know not 
the further course which he adopted for his labours.. 


NOTES BY AMERICAN EDITOR. 


(m?) Except ye be circumcised. V.1. 


These words introduce one of the most exciting and important controversies 
in the history of the Christian Church—the first famous controversy, which 
threatened the disruption of the church into two sections—a Jewish and a Gen- 
tile church—or, as Meyer designates them, Pharisee Christians and @entile Chris- 
tians. The only other topics of equal moment which have arisen are the doc- 
trine of the Trinity, which shook the church to its foundation in the fourth 
century—a question concerning the person of Christ ; and the doctrine of justi- 
fication by faith, which was the grand central truth of the Protestant Reforma- 
tion—a question concerning the work of Christ. The question which so early 
and so Jong agitated the primitive church was whether the law of circumcision 
was still obligatory or abrogated? whether it was necessary to require all to 
enter the church through the gate of Judaism? or, regarding these rites as 
superseded by a new dispensation, to open the door for all who simply be- 
lieved on the Lord Jesus. The conservative party held that circumcision was 
a divine ordinance, and asked by what authority these new teachers set aside 
or changed what God had established? Not only did they make circumcision 
a condition of church communion, but excluded the uncircumcised from the 
hope of salvation. So that the real question at issue between the disputants 


1 Dem. 1105. 24; Deut. xxix. 28; Jer. xxxii. 37. 


300 CHAP. XV.—NOTES, 


was whether Christianity should be confined to the narrowness of a Jewish 
sect, or be propagated as the religion of the world ?—the distinction, in this 
respect, between Jew and Gentile being forever done away. 

The Judaizing teachers declared that it was necessary for the Gentiles ‘‘to be 
circumcised and to keep the law of Moses.’’ Paul and Barnabas asserted that 
this was directly opposed to the principles of the Gospel—that the true Chris- 
tian doctrine is, “ that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself,’’ 
and that ‘‘he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”’ The controversy 
waxed warm at Antioch, and, as the church at Jerusalem was the mother 
church, and many of the apostles were there, the congregations desired to know 
what was the view of the question entertained there ; so a deputation of en- 
quiry was sent. Paul and Barnabas, and Titus also (Gal. ii. 1), were of the 
embassy. 


(n?) Apostles and elders. VY. 6. 


We know not how many of the apostles were present. Peter, John, and 
James the Lord’s brother, and probably others were there ; as were also Paul 
and Barnabas, Silas, Titus, and Jude. With the apostles and elders gathered 
the brethren for counsel, and the decision arrived at was announced in the 
name of all. After some preliminary and exciting discussions, Peter arose and 
addressed the assembly. Partly on account of his age and eminent position, 
and partly because he first admitted the Gentiles to the church without cireum- 
cision, he speaks first. His position was one of authority, but not of primacy. 
And his authority was that of personal character and practical experience, noth- 
ing more. In his cogent and conclusive address Peter shows that the question 
had already been decided by God himself, since by the effusion of his Spirit he 
had manifested his acceptance of the Gentiles. Now therefore why tempt ye God? 
Seeing that we all believe that Jew and Gentile alike are saved by the grace of 
God through faith in Christ Jesus, it is neither reasonable, nor in harmony 
wtth the will of God, to fetter that grace with superfluous and vexatious condi- 
tions, “The Spirit of God, through the apostle, now put an end to the 
‘much disputing,’ and the decisive reply derived from God’s testimony had 
been made perceptible to all.’’ (Stier.) All the assembly kept silent and lis- 
tened to the account given them by Barnabas and Paul of the wonders of di- 
vine grace among the Gentiles. 


(0?) James answered. V. 13. 


«We, as many others, consider that this James was not the apostle James, 
the son of Alpheus, but James the brother of the Lord, who was not one 
of the twelve, but was regarded the head of the church at Jerusalem, men- 
tioned in xii. 17, and Gal. ii. 9.’” (Stier.) See also note oni. 14. It is gener- 
ally supposed that he was president of the council. He was, at least, the last 
to speak, and delivered the judgment of the assembly. He is spoken of in 
ecclesiastical history as bishop of Jerusalem, and also as a legalist or strict ob- 
server of the Mosaic law. In his address he confirms all that Peter had said, 
and shows from prophecy that God had a purpose of mercy toward the Gen- 
tiles ; and to insist on making a partial and temporary ritual a condition of 


NOTES. 301 


church membership was an attempt to frustrate the purposes of God. For his 
part, he was prepared to admit the Gentiles, even in uncircumeision. His 
opinion would carry great weight, both from his reputed sanctity and sagacity, 
but also from his well-known Hebrew sympathies. He proposed that the Gen- 
tiles should not be troubled on the question of circumcision, but simply en- 
joined to abstain from certain things, which were either indifferent in them- 
selves, or immoral, and therefore to be avoided. The great end sought in this 
deliverance which was adopted by the assembly was the reconciliation of the 
hostile parties and the peace of the church. ‘‘The true meaning appears to 
be that the Gentiles should abstain from these things in order to avoid giving 
offence to the Jews ; for in every city the law is preached every Sabbath, and 
so these matters are brought prominently forward ; and thus, unless there be 
an abstinence from these particulars, the preaching of the law would perpetu- 
ate the offence of the Jewish to the Gentile Christians. In order, then, to 
maintain peace, let the Gentile Christians abstain from those aztions which 
are regarded by the Jews as causing pollution.’’ (Gloag.) These are substan- 
tially the views of Meyer presented in the text. And-Alford says: ‘‘ Living, 
as the Gentile converts would be, in the presence of Jewish Christians who 
heard those Mosaic prohibitions read, as they had been from generations past, in 
their synagogues, it would be well for them to avoid all such conduct and 
habits as would give unnecessary offense.”’ 


(P?) Paul’s visits to Jerusalem. V. 21. 


In the Acts five visits of Paul to Jerusalem are mentioned—ix. 26, xi. 30, 
xv. 4, xvlii. 22, and xxi. 15. In the Epistle to the Galatians two visits are 
mentioned—Gal. 1.18 and ii. 1. The first in each case is clearly identical. 
There are, however, different opinions as to the second referred to in the 
Epistle. All admit it cannot be either the first or the fifth mentioned in the 
Acts. Some suppose Paul to have made a visit which is not recorded in Luke’s 
narrative—possible, but not probable, Others think that in the Epistle refer- 
ence is made to the second visit. But the date—fourteen years after his con- 
version—precludes the possibility of that conjecture being correct. The fourth 
visit has also its advocates, but theirarguments are not at all clear or satis- 
factory. 

It is almost certain that in the Epistle the apostle refers to this visit to the 
council, as Meyer indicates. The result of the whole discussion is thus stated 
by Conybeare: “If the Galatian visit be mentioned at all in the Acts, it must 
be identical with the visit at which the (so-called) council took place.” ‘“ The 
Galatian visit could not have happened before the third visit ; because, if so, 
the apostles at Jerusalem had already granted to Paul and Barnabas the liberty 
which was sought for the ebayyéAvov tng axpoBvotiac ; therefore there would 
“ have been no need for the church to send them again to Jerusalem upon the 
same cause. And, again, the Galatian visit could not have happened after 
visit third ; because almost immediately after that period Paul and Barnabas 
ceased to work together as missionaries to the Gentiles ; whereas, up to the 
time of the Galatian visit they had been working together.” This conclusion 
is clear and satisfactory, and is adopted not only by Meyer, but by many able 
commentators. 


302 CHAP. XV—NOTES. 


(a?) Send greeting. V. 23. ~ 


The word used means to rejoice or be giad. It is only found elsewhere in 
N. T., Jamesi.1. As this letter was, in all probability, either written or dic- 
tated by James, this coincidence certainly suggests that he also wrote the Epis- 
tle that bears his name. The letter written and sent to the churches was of the 
nature of a compromise, framed with great sagacity and foresight as a concor- 
dat between the contending parties. The advocates of freedom would be sat- 
isfied, because circumcision and the rites of the Mosaic law were not to be in- 
sisted on ; the other party, influenced by the discussion, and specially by the 
speeches of James and of Peter, the apostle of the circumcision, would accept the 
allowance made to their scruples in other matters. But their acquiescence in 
the decision was only temporary. They did not relinquish their opinions, and 
were soon more active than ever in disseminating them. They followed Paul 
everywhere ; and to the end of his life he maintained a fearless and forceful 
protest against their persistent attempts to infringe the liberty wherewith 
Christ makes his people free. ‘‘The decision of the council at Jerusalem was 
a great step in advance. Had it been otherwise, had they decided that cireum- 
cision and the observance of the law of Moses were necessary, the progress of 
Christianity would have been impeded. But now Gentile Christianity could 
be freely propagated without let or hindrance : all the obstacles which stood in 
the way of its diffusion were removed, and the apostolic church was delivered 
from legal bondage. We see the immediate effects of this decision in the joy 
and confidence which the reading of the decree imparted to the Christians at 
Antioch, and in the great success of Paul in his second missionary journey. 
The triumph of the free Christian over the Judaizing party was one great ele- 
ment in the success of the Gospel.” (Gloag.) 


(R?) V. 34. 


This verse is wanting in the best mss. See critical notes by Meyer, who char- 
acterizes the verse as spurious. Alford says : ‘‘On every account it is probable 
that the words forming this verse in the received version are an interpolation.” 
Bloomfield writes: ‘‘This verse is omitted in several mss. and versions, and is 
rejected’’ by many. Jackett says: ‘‘Griesbach, Lachman, Tischendorf, and 
others strike out this verse. Most of the mss. omit it or read it variously. It 
is a gloss probably, supposed to be required by verse 40.” Gloag says: ‘‘ Verse 
34 is considered by the best critics as an interpolation, designed to account 
for the presence of Silas in Antioch.” There is no difficulty, but even the 
highest propriety, in supposing that Silas first went to Jerusalem to make his 
report, and then returned to Antioch, of his own accord or at Paul’s desire. 
This verse is omitted in the revised version. 


(s?) The contention of Paul and Barnabas. V. 39. 


They could not agree about the character of Mark and his fitness to accom- 
pany them on their missionary tour. Barnabas, influenced by the kindness 
and generosity of his disposition, and by his natural affection for Mark, as his 
sister’s son, was disposed to take Mark ; but Paul, viewing the matter, not on 


NOTES, 303 


any personal grounds, and constitutionally intolerant of vacillation or weakness, 
thought it was not right or fitting to take with them one who had previously 
been guilty of a serious dereliction of duty in leaving them and the work several 
years before. Barnabas insisted ; Paul would not yield ; and so they agreed to 
part. In this dispute both doubtless were at fault ; both were angry and under 
undue excitement ; nor is it ours to determine how far each was to be blamed, 
or which should be most censured. Nor need we inquire “ whether Paul was 
chargeable with undue severity or Barnabas with nepotism, or both, or neither, 
all which alternatives have been maintained.” The contention or paroxysm 
was of short duration, and produced no lasting effects on the mutual relations 
of the three men concerned. The warmth of their previous friendship, com- 
menced probably in boyhood, fostered by mutual acts of kindness, and con- 
firmed by common labors and dangers, made the breach between them all the 
more painful. This variance, however, did not in any degree diminish their 
zeal in their work, or permanently affect their regard for each other ; and it 
was overruled for the wider diffusion of the Gospel. Paul took Silas and went 
his way ; Barnabas took Mark and went his. But, as Alford observes: ‘It 
seems as if there were a considerable difference in the character of their setting out. 
Barnabas appears to have gone with his nephew without any special sympathy 
or approval ; whereas Paul was commended to the grace of God by the assem- 
bled church.”’ Too much, however, may be inferred from the seeming differ- 
ence, as Luke had no occasion to speak particularly of the departure of Barna- 
bas and Mark. Barnabas henceforth disappears from the narrative of Luke 
altogether. But Paul in his Epistles speaks of him with the highest respect and 
affection ; he also afterwards commends Mark, mentions him among the num- 
ber of his fellow-laborers, and in his last letter to Timothy, the last he wrote, 
he expresses a wish to have Mark with him, as one who was profitable to him 
‘for the ministry (1 Cor. ix. 6, Gal. ii. 9, Col. iv. 10, Philemon 24, and 2 Tim. 
iv. 11). Taylor says : ‘‘ These allusions, after all that had occurred, are equally 
creditable to both parties. They show that Mark had grown steady and brave, 
and was not above ministering to Paul ; and they prove that Paul was not so 
mean as to keep up an old grudge, when all that caused it had been perfectly 
removed.” The fact that the dispute with Peter had occurred just before this, 
and that even Barnabas had been carried away with the temporizing spirit, may 
have had some influence on the mind of Paul. Stier favors Paul in this sad 
matter, as does also Calvin ; Renan takes the part of Barnabas very strongly, 
and accuses Paul of pride, love of pre-eminence, and ingratitude. ‘‘ Barnabas,” 
says he, ‘‘ had not Paul’s genius, but who can say whether in the true hierar- 
chy of souls, which is regulated by the degree of goodness, he would not occu- 
py a more elevated rank ?”’ 


304 CRITICAL REMARKS. 


CHAPTER XVI. 


Ver. 1. After yvvaınds Elz. has rıvos, which is decidedly spurious according 
to the evidence. — Ver. 3. tov matépa avroü, örı "HAA, brjpyev] Lachm. reads 
ote “EAAnv 6 ratip abtod Innpxev, according to ABC NS, min. Rightly; the 
Recepta is a mechanical or designed transposition into the usual mode of ex- 
pression by attraction. If the reading of Lachm. were a resolution of the 
attraction, "EAAnv would not have been placed first. — Ver. 6. dıeAdövres] A B 
CDE 8, min. and several vss, and Fathers have 6v7260v, and in ver. 7 for the 
most part dé after Ei0övres. Both are adopted by Lachm. and Born. The 
attestation of this reading is so preponderating, that it cannot be held 
as an emendation to avoid the recurrence of participial clauses. The Re- 
cepta, on the contrary, appears to have risen because of a wish to indicate 
that the hindrance of the Spirit took place only after passing through Phrygia 
and Galatia, which appeared necessary if Asia was understood in too wide a 
sense. The reading of the Vulg. presents another corresponding attempt: 
‘‘transeuntes autem . . . vetati sunt.’’— Ver. 7. iS 7. B.] Elz. has kara r. B., 
against decisive evidence. Either a mere error of a copyist after the preced- 
ing «ard, or an intentional interpretation). —’Ijcot] is wanting in Elz., but 
supported by decisive evidence. If only zvedya were original, the gloss added 
would not have been ’Ijcod (for rv. ’Inoov is not elsewhere found in the N. T.), 
but, from the preceding, ro dyıov. — Ver. 9. The order best attested and there- 
fore to be adopted is: avjp Maredaév rıc Fv. So Lachm., also Tisch., and Born.; 
the latter, however, has deleted 7» according to too weak evidence (it was 
superfluous), and, moreover, has in accordance with D adopted év öpauarı . . . 
560m Oost avyp k.t.2., an explanatory gloss, as also are the words kara tpdcwrov 
abtrov added after éorus (Born.). — Ver. 10, 6 Köpios] A BCE NS, min. Copt. 
Vulg. Jer. have 6 026s. Recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. 
The Recepta is a gloss in accordance with.ver. 7 (rveüua ’Inooö), comp. xiii. 2, 
or written on the margin in accordance with ii. 39. — Ver. 13. mays] Approved 
already by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. instead of the usual 
zoAeor, against which A BCD NS, min. Copt. Sahid. Vulg. Cant. witness. rc 
méAewS was written by the side of 775 riAns as a gloss (as some vss. have still 
T. TUANS T. nöAewS), and then supplanted the original. — évouifero mpooevxn] A** 
BC 8, lot. 13, 40, Copt. Aeth. have Zrouilouev mpooevxyv. So Lachm, An al- 
teration, because the reading of the text was not understood. From the same 
misunderstanding the reading in D, Epiph. 2dökeı zpocevy7 (so Born.) arose, 
and the translation of the Vulg., “ubi videbatur oratio esse.’’— Ver. 16, r 
mpocevynv] In Elz. the article is wanting, but is supported by preponderating 
evidence and by its necessity (ver. 13), —TII’@wv0s] AB C* D (?) &, loti. 33, 
Vulg. Cant, and some Fathers have zi9wva. Adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. 
Correctly ; the accusative, not understood, was changed for the genitive as the 
more intelligible case, which was well known to the transcribers with rveüwa 
(comp. especially, Luke iv. 33). — Ver. 17. Instead of the second nuiv, Tisch, 


PAUL AND SILAS. 305 


© 


Born. have wuiv, contrary to AC GH, min. vss. and Fathers. But Zum ap- 
peared less suitable, especially as a demoniacal spirit spoke from the maudiorn. 
— Ver. 24, Instead of elAnods read, with Lachm. and Born., Aaßov on decisive 
evidence. — Ver. 31. Xpiordév] is with Lachm. and Tisch, to be deleted as a 
usual addition (comp. on xy. 11), on the authority of AB S, min. Copt. Vulg. 
Lueif. — Ver. 32. kat réo1.] ABCD 8, min. Vulg. Cant. Lucif. have ody rao. 
Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born, The «ai easily crept 
in, because with it the dative mdoz trois remained, and because xa? 6 oikds cov 
(ver. 31) preceded, — Ver. 34. pyaAAıdoaro] C* (?) D, min. Chrys. Oec. Theo- 
phyl. have 7yaAAıaro. Approved by Griesb. and adopted by Born. and Tisch. 
With this weak attestation it is to be regarded as an easily committed error of 
a transcriber. — Ver. 39. &&eA0eiv 775 m0X.] Lachm. and Tisch. read areAfeiv and 
T. n0A., according to AB S, min. A more definite and precise statement. — 
Ver. 40. pds] Elz. has eis against decisive evidence. 


Vv. 1, 2. Aépf. x. Atorp.] See on xiv. 6.— éxei] does not refer to both 
cities, as Otto, Pastoralbr. p. 58, strangely assumes, but to the last named, 
Lystra. Here Timothy, whose conversion by Paul is to be referred to xiv. 
6 f., was at that time residing (jv éxei) ; probably it was also his native 
rlace,' as may be inferred from ver. 2 (&uaprvpeiro ixd Tov Ev Abotporc) COM- 
pared with ver. 3 (jdevoav yap aravrec k.7.2.). Usually, even by Olshausen 
and Neander, but not by de Wette and Baumgarten, Timothy is supposed 
to be a native of Derbe, on account of Acts xx. 4;? éxei is referred to 
AépBnv, very arbitrarily, and ver. 2 is explained to mean that, besides the 
presupposed good report of his native city, Timothy had also the good 
repoit of the neighbouring cities of Lystra and Iconium ; a very forced 
explanation, which Theophilus and the other first readers certainly did not 
hit upon !— yuvaık. ’Iovd. mıor.]| The name of this Jewish-Christian was 
Eunice.” "Iovöaias is the adjective, John iii. 22, as also "EAAnvoc and 
Maxed@v, ver. 9. Whether the father was a pure Gentile or a proselyte of 
the gate, the language employed * and the lack of other information leave 
entirely undecided. — äuaprvp. | as in vi. 3. — 'Iroviw] see on xiii. 51. What 
were the peculiar circumstances, which had made Timothy honourably 
known in Iconium as well as in the place of his birth, we do not know. 

Ver. 5. Apart from his superior personal qualifications, fostered by a 
pious education,° Timothy was also well adapted to be the coadjutor of the 
apostle from the peculiar external relation in which he stood as belonging | 
by parentage both to the Jewish and to the Gentile Christians. — ?aßov 
reptéteuer| he took and circumcised. There is no reason whatever to suppose 
that Paul should not have himself performed this act, which might in fact 
be done by any Israelite.° — dıa rovc "Iovdaiovc] namely, to avoid the offence 
which the Jews in the region of Lystra and Iconium would have taken, 
had Paul associated with himself one who was uncircumcised to go forth 


1 With this Köhler also agrees in Herzog’s 2 But see remarks on that passage. 
Encykl. XVI. p. 168; Huther and Wiesinger 3 See 2 Tim. i. 5. 
leave it undecided ; but Wieseler, p. 25 f., 4 See on xi. 20. 
endeavours to uphold the usual view. But Timo: lo: 


see on xx. 4. ” 6 Comp. on Luke i. 59. 


306 CHAP, XVI., 4-7. 
(é£eA0eiv) as his colleague in proclaiming the Messianic salvation. Paul 
acted thus according to the principle of wise and conciliatory accommoda- 
tion,' and not out of concession to the Judaistic dogma of the necessity of 
circumcision for obtaining the Messianic salvation.” He acted thus in order 
to leave no cause of offence at his work among the yet unconverted Jews of 
that region, and not to please Christian Judaists, to whom, if they had 
demanded the circumcision of Timothy, as they did that of Titus at 
Jerusalem,* he would as little have yielded as he did in the case of Titus. 
This entirely non-dogmatic motive for the measure, which was neither 
demanded by others nor yet took place with a view to Timothy’s own 
salvation or to the necessity of circumcision for salvation generally, removes 
it from all contradiction either with the apostolic decree, xv. 29, or with 
Gal. ii. 3; for in the case of Titus circumcision was demanded by others 
against his will, and that on the ground of dogmatic assertion, and so Paul 
could not allow that to be done on Titus,* which he himself performed on 
Timothy. This we remark in opposition to Baur and Zeller, who attack 
our narrative as unhistorical, because it stands radically at variance with 
the apostle’s principles and character, so that it belongs ‘‘ to the absolutely 
incredible element in the Book of Acts.’’® Chrysostom has hit in the main 
on the correct interpretation : oidév HabAov ovverétepov’ Gote mavra mpöc TO 
ovup&pov Eopa . But the canon insisted 
on inthe Talmud: partus sequitur ventrem,® can hardly have been taken 
into consideration by the apostle,’ because Timothy was already a Christian, 
and thus beyond the stage of Judaism; and therefore it is not to be 
assumed, with Ewald, p. 482, that Paul had wished merely to remove the 
reproach of illegitimacy from Timothy—even laying aside the fact that 
Jewesses were not prohibited from marrying Gentiles, with the exception 
only of the seven Canaanitish nations. The circumstance : viöc yvvarkög 
x.r.2., ver. 1, serves only to explain whence it happens that Timothy, whose 
Christian mother was known to be a Jewess, was yet uncircumcised ; the 
‚father was a Gentile, and had in his paternal authority left him uncircum- 
cised. — Observe, according to the correct reading örı "EAAnv 6 marjp aitoo 
imipxyev (see the critical remarks), the suitable emphasis with which the 
predicate is placed first: that a @reek his father was. irdpyew in the sense 
of eivaı is used most frequently in the N. T. by Luke. An antithesis to 
gaiveoda is arbitrarily and unsuitably imported by Otto. 

Vv. 4, 5. Mapedidovv] orally, perhaps also partly in writing, by delivering 
to them a copy of the decree, xv. 23 ff. —airoic] namely, to the Gentile- 
Christians in the towns, which the connection requires by ¢vAdcoew. — Ta 


mepıErenev iva Tepitouny Kadé2n. 


1 1.Cor. ix. 19. 

2 Erasmus in his Paraphrase (dedicated to 
Pope Clement vit.) observes: Non quod cre- 
deret eircumeisionem conferre salutem, quam 
sola fides adferebat, sed ne quid tumultus 
oriretur a Judaeis.’? Observe this distinctively 
Lutheran sola fides. 

3 Gal. ii. 3 f. 

4 Comp. Gal. v. 2. 


5 Baur, I. p. 147, ed. 2. See, on the other 
hand, Lechler in the Wurtemb. Stud. X1x. 2. 
p. 130 ff., and apost. und nachapost. Zeitalt. 
p. 419 ; Thiersch, Airche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 
136 f. ; Lekebusch, p. 272 ff. ; Baumgarten, I. 

6 See Wetstein. [p. 483 ff. 

7In opposition to Thiersch and Lange, 
apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 102 f. 

8 Ex. xxxiv. 16; Deut. vii. 1 ff. 


THEY JOURNEY TO TROAS, 307 


ööyuara] Luke ii. 1, the ordinances. — io tov aroor. k.r.A.] the mention of 
the leaders was sufficient ; the co-operation of the church is, according to 
xv. 22 f., obvious of itself. — rov &v 'Iepovo.] belongs only to r. rpecBur. — 
Ver. 5. They developed themselves internally in stedfastness of faith, and 
externally in the daily increasing number of their members. On the former, 
comp. Col. ii. 5; xav juép. belongs to Erepıoo. r. apud ue, comp. ii. 46. 

Vy. 6, 7. According to the reading dı7Adov and, ver. 7, éAddvrec dé (see 
the critical remarks) : Now they went through Phrygia and Galatia, after they 
had been withheld by the Holy Spirit from preaching in Asia ; but having come 
toward Mysia, they attempted, etc. Observe (1) that this hindrance of the 
Spirit to their preaching in Asia induced them, instead of going to Asia, to 
take their route through Phrygia and Galatia, and therefore the founding 
of the Galatian churches is correctly referred to this period ;' indeed, the 
founding of these may have been the immediate object aimed at in that hin- 
drance. The fact that Luke so silently passes over the working in Phrygia 
and Galatia, is in keeping with the unequal character of the information 
given by him generally—an inequality easily explained from the diversity 
of his documents and intelligence otherwise acquired —so that it appears 
arbitrary toimpute to him a special set purpose—Olshausen : he was hasten- 
ing with his narrative to the European scene of action; Baumgarten : be- 
cause the main stream of development proceeded from Jerusalem to Rome, 
and the working in question lay out of the line of this direction ;* and quite 
erroneously Schneckenburger : because there were no Jews to be found in 
those regions, and tnerefore Luke could not have illustrated in that case how 
Paul turned first to the Jews. Further, (2) Asia cannot be the quarter of 
the world in contrast to Europe, but only the western coast of Asia Minor, as 
in ii. 9, vi. 9. To that region his journey from Lycaonia—Derbe and Lystra, 
ver. 1—was directed ; but by the hindrance of the Spirit it was turned else- 
where, namely, to Phrygia and Galatia, the latter taken in the usual narrower 
sense, not according to the extent of the Roman province at that time, as 
Böttger, Thiersch, and others suppose.*—The hindering of the Spirit, taken 
by Zeller in the sense of the apostle's own inward tact, is in vv. 6, 7 to be 
regarded as an influence of the Holy Spirit — that is, of the objective Divine 
Spirit, not of ‘‘ the holy spirit of prudence, which judged the circumstances 
correctly,’’ de Wette—on their souls, which internal indication, they were 
conscious, was that of the Spirit. — xara r. Mvoiav] not: at (see ver. 8), but 
toward Mysia, Mysia-wards, in the direction of the border of that land. They 
wished from this to go northeastward to Bithynia ; for in Mysia, which, along 
with Lydia and Caria, belonged to Asia, they were forbidden to preach. 
— ro mvevua ’Incov] i.e. the ayov rvevua, ver. 6 ; see on Rom. viii. 9. 


Remarr.— According to the Received text (dseAfdvtes . . . éAGdvres), the ren. 
dering must be: having journeyed through Phrygia and Galatia, they endeavoured, 
after they had been withheld by the Holy Spirit from preaching in Asia, on coming 


1 Whether he also planted churches in place by means of others, Col. ii. 1, 
Phrygia, is unknown tous. The founding of 2 Comp. also Zeller, p. 383. 
the church in Colossae and Laodicea took 3 Comp. on Gal. Introd. § 1. 


308 CHAP. XVI., 8-11. 


toward Mysia, to journey to Bithynia, ete. Comp. Wieseler, p. 31 ; Baumgarten, 
p. 489 ; and see regarding the asyndetic participles, which ‘‘ mutua temporis vel 
causae ratione inter se referuntur,’’ Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 1. 7; Dissen, ad 
Dem. de cor. p. 249 ; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 255 (E. T. 297). 


Vv. 8-10. They were now between Mysia and Bithynia. To Bithynia 
the Spirit suffered them not to go; in Mysia they were not to preach, 
because it belonged to Asia. In this position of things they saw them- 
selves directed to the West, away from all their former sphere of action, 
and across to Greece. 7%is the Spirit now willed. Accordingly they had 
first to make for the Asiatic sea-coast, and therefore they went directly 
westward along the southern border of Mysia, of course without preaching, 
for this they were not permitted to do, and thus, having passed by Mysia 
(rapeASévtec tiv Movoiav), they came down to T’roas on the Hellespont, in 
order there to determine more precisely their further journey to the West, 
or to receive for this purpose a higher determination, which they might 
expect in accordance with the previous operations of the Spirit. And they 
received this higher determination by a visionary appearance! which was 
made to the apostle during the night (dca r. vuxröc, as in v. 19). This vis- 
ion ? is not to be considered as a dream, ° as is evident from the expression 
itself, and from the fact that there is no mention of a kar’ övap or the like, 
or afterwards of an ävaorac or other similar expression, but after the seeing 
of the vision the &{nryoauev x.7.2. comes in without further remark. Ols- 
hausen, however, very hastily lays it down asa settled point, that revela- 
tion by dreams, as the lowest form of revelation,* was no longer vouch- 
safed to the apostles who were endowed with the Holy Spirit, but that they 
must have had their visions in ecstasy, always in a waking condition. We 
have far too little information as to the life of the apostles to maintain 
this.° — Makedov] is used adjectivally.© As Macedonian the appearance 
announced itself, namely, by dıaßäc eic Maxed. Bord. juiv. It is arbitrary in 
Grotius to say that an angel had appeared, and indeed ‘“ angelus curator 
Macedonum.’’ Something objectively real is not indicated by öpaua 8007." 
— ECnrhoauev] we sought, directed our view to the necessity of procuring, 
first of all, the opportunity of a ship, etc. Here Luke, for the first time, 
includes himself in the narrative, and therefore it is rightly assumed that 
he joined Paul at 7’roas. He does not enter further on his personal rela- . 
tions, because Theophilus was acquainted with them. Olshausen arbitrarily 
thinks : from modesty. On and against the assumptions that Timothy * or 
Silas® wrote the portions in which ‘‘ we” occurs, see Introd. $ 1.— 


1 öpana, ix. 10, x. 3, xviii. 9. further occurrences as regards their historical 
2 Taken by Baur, I. p. 166, ed. 2, only as character. 
an embellishment of the history, namely, as 3 Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Zeller. 2 
symbolizing the desire of salvation, with which 4 ? See Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 284. 
not only the Macedonian population, but the 5 Comp. also ii. 17. 
men of Europe in general, called upon the 6 Comp. on v. 1 f. as in Thuc. i. 62. 3, i. 
apostle to come over to them. This view 63. 3. 
Zeller also, p. 251, considers as possible. It 7 Comp. x. 17. 
is in the connection of the entire narrative 8 Schleiermacher, Mayerhoff, Ulrich, Bleek. 


impossible, and simply tends to obscure the ° Schwanbeck. 


CALL TO MACEDONIA. 309 


ovußıßafovrec x.r.A.]| because we gathered (colligebamus) as the meaning of 
that appearance, drew from it the conclusion,! that in it there was issued to 
us the call of God (see the critical remarks), and the in itself indefinite 
BowSyoov yuiv was the call for help to be afforded by communication of the 
gospel (T?). 

Ver. 11. Eidudpou.| having sailed from Troas, we ran by a straight course, 
xxi. 1. The word is not preserved in Greek writers, who have, however, 
evdvdpduog and as a verb, eiduTA0éw. — Samothrace, a well-known island off 
the coast of Thrace, in the Aegean Sea. — rn éxwotcy] die postero, used by 
Greek writers both with (vii. 26) and without 7u£pa.” In the N. T. it 
occurs only in Acts. — Neapolis, at an earlier period Datos,* a seaport on 
the Strymonian Gulf, opposite the island of Thasos, at that time belonging 
to Thrace, but after Vespasian to Macedonia.‘— On Philippi, formerly 
Krenides, named from the Macedonian Philip, who enlarged and fortitied 
it, see the Introd. to Philipp. $ 1.— porn ti¢ pepidog Maxed. KoAwvia mont | 
As in that district of Macedonia, divided by Aemilius Paulus into four 
parts, Amphipolis was the capital, and party möAıc cannot therefore in a 
strict sense mean capital ;* all difficulty is removed simply by connecting, 
and not, as is usually done,° separating, röAıc koAovia: which is the first, in 
rank, colony-town of the part concerned of Macedonia.” Thus it is unneces- 
sary, with Kuinoel, Hug, and others,” who separate wöiıc from koAwvia, to 
take rpaty mé2uc in the sense of a city endowed with privileges—Bertholdt com- 
pares the French use of bonne ville—inscriptions on coins being appealed to, 
in which the formal epithet rpörn is given to Greek cities which were not 
capitals.’ In the case of Philippi itself no special privileges are known, 
except the general colonial rights of the jus Jtalicwm ; nor is the title spér7y 
found on the coins of Philippi, it is met with only in the case of cities in 
Asia Minor.'’ Others take zpéry of local situation, so that they too separate 
moduc from koAwvia: ‘‘ Philippi was the first city of Macedonia at which Paul 
touched in his line of travel.’ So Olshausen and Wieseler, following 
Erasmus, who, however, appears to join möAıc xoA., Cornelius a Lapide, 
Calovius, Raphael, Wolf, Bengel, Eckermann, Heinrichs. In this case we 
have not to consider Neapolis as the mere port of Philippi (Olshausen), but 
with Rettig, van Hengel, ad Phil. p. 4 ff., and De Wette, to lay stress on 
the fact that Neapolis at that time belonged to Thrace, and to take éori 


whom Philippi, on account of its flourishing 
condition at that time, is assumed to be named 


1 Comp. Plat. Hipp. min. p. 369 D, Pol. vi. 
p. 504 A, and Stallb. in loc. 


2 See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 464. 

3 Strabo, vii. p. 330. 

4 Sueton. Vesp.8; Dio Cass. xlvii. 35 ; Ptol. 
iii. 13. 9. 

5 Liv. xlv. 29. 

6 Without any reason, Wetstein imagined 
that after the battle at Philippi this city was 
raised to be the capital. From the erroneous 
interpretation capital arose the reading yrıs 
eoriv kebaAy tis Mak., moAıs KoAwvia, Which 
Bornemann regards as original. 

7 Thus also Ewald, p. 485, according to 


“the first city of the province of Macedonia.” 
But wepis does not mean province (emapxia, 
xxiii. 34, xxv. 1). 

8 Comp. also Baumgarten, who elaborately 
explains pepidos, as if ns oikovpevns stood 
alongside of it, so that rns Maxed. would be in 
apposition to T. pepidos. See also Credner, 
Pint. i. p. 418 f.; Mynster, kl. theol. Schr. 
p. 170. 

®See Eckhel, doctr. vet. num. I. 4. 282; 
Boeckh, Corpus inscript. I. 2, No. 335. 

10 See Rettig, Quaest. Philipp. p. 5f. 


810 CHAP, XVI.,. 12-15. 


(Luke did not write 7v) as an expression of the admitted state of things, 
that Philippi from that side is the first city, consequently the most easterly.* 
But what reason could Luke have to make such an exact geographical 
specification, especially with regard to such a well-known city as Philippi? 
It is quite at variance with his manner elsewhere. And that too with the 
argumentatively (quippe quae) emphatic jrıc? This applies also in opposi- 
tion to Grotius, who takes 7éAc¢ koAwvia together, the first colonial city, but 
understands porn also of the geographical situation. According to our 
view, there is conveyed in jrıc an explanation of the motive for their going 
to Philippi in particular, seeing that it is, namely, the most noteworthy 
colonial-city of the district, so that the gospel might at once acquire a very 
considerable and extensive sphere of action in Macedonia. If in itself 
afioud éote ToAewo 7 KOA@vEca (Chrysostom), this is yet more heightened 
by zpéry.—On the combination of two substantives like möAlıc Kodwvia, 
comp. Lobeck, Puralip. p. 344. Instead of koAwvia, the Greek uses aroı- 
kia Or &moıkia ; instead of mörıc koAwvia, möAıc aroıkic. — Philippi was colonized 
by Octavianus through the removal thither of the partisans of Antonius, 
and had also the jus Italiecum conferred on it.” (w’). 

Ver. 13. Torayéy] i.e. not, as Bornemann and Bleek suppose, the Strymon, 
which is distant more than a day’s journey, but possibly the rivulet Gangas,* 
or some other stream in the neighbourhood which abounded with springs. — 
ov Evouilero mpocevyy eivac| where a place of prayer was accustomed to be, i.e. 
where, according to custom, a place of prayer was. On vowifeodar, in more 
esse, to be wont.* Not: where, as was supposed, there was a place of prayer 
(Ewald), in which case we should have to supply the thought that the 
place did not look like a synagogue, which, however, is as arbitrary as it is 
historically unimportant. The zpocevyai were places of prayer, sometimes 
buildings, and at other times open spaces—so most probably here, as may 
be inferred from ov &vouilero eivaı—near to streams, on account of the custom 
of washing the hands before prayer, to be met with in cities where syna- 
gogues did not exist or were not permitted, serving the purposes of a 
synagogue.’—raic ovverd. yvvarti] the women who came together, to prayer. 
Probably the number of Jewish men in the city was extremely small, and 
the whole unimportant Jewish population consisted chiefly of women, some 
of them doubtless married to Gentiles, ver. 1; hence there is no mention 
of men being present. More arbitrary is the explanation of Calvin: ‘‘ Vel 
ad coetus tantum muliebres destinatus erat locus ille, vel apud viros frigebat 
religio, ut saltem tardius adessent ;’’ and of Schrader: the Jews had been 
expelled from the city. 

Ver. 14. Kai te x.7.4.] Also a woman was listening, etc. Avdia was a 
common female name,° and therefore it remains doubtful whether she re- 


1 See Wieseler, p. 37 f. f. ; from Philo, in Loesner, p. 208. 

2See Dio Cass. li. 4; Plin. Z. N. iv. 11; 5 Juvenal, iii. 295. See Joseph. Antt. xiv. 
Digest. Leg. xv. 6. 10. 23; Corp. inseript. II. p. 1005; Vitringa, 

3 So Zeller, Hackett. Synag. p. 119 ff.; Rosenmiiller, Morgenl. VI. 


4 See Hermann, ad Lucian. de hist. conser. _p. 26 f. 
p. 244; Schweighäuser, Zex. Herod. II. p. 126 ® Hor. Od. i. 8, iii. 9, vi. 20. 


LYDIA BAPTIZED AT PHILIPPI. 311 


ceived her name ‘a solo natali.’’' — mopsvpörwäuc] 7 ra mopovpä, fabrics and 
clothes dyed purple, twAovoa.* The dyeing of purple was actively carried 
on,* especially in Lydia, to which 7’hyatira belonged,‘ and an inscription 
found at Thyatira particularly mentions the guild of dyers of that place.*® 
—oeBou. tr. dev] A female proselyte. See on xiii. 16, 43. — 74 6 Kip. dujvorse 
t. kapd.| Luke recognises the attentive interest, which Lydia with her heart 
unclosed directed to the word, as produced by the influence of the exalted 
Christ (6 Kvpioc) working for the promotion of His kingdom, who opened 
(diqvoree) the heart of Lydia, i.e. wrought in her self-consciousness, as the centre 
and sphere of action of her inner vital energy, the corresponding veadiness, in 
order that she might attend to what was preached (xpocéy. roig Aadovu.). The 
Jidem habere® followed, but still was not the rpooéyerv itself. Comp. on viii. 
6. Moreover, Chrysostom correctly remarks : 70 wév obv avoiga Tov Oeov' ro dé 
mpocéyelv atic’ ote kai Yeiov kai avbporivoy qv." _She experienced the motus 
inevitabiles of grace, to which she offered no resistance, but with willing 
submission rendered the moral self-conscious compliance by which she 
arrived at faith.® 

Ver. 15. Kai 6 oixoc aity¢| Of what members her family consisted, cannot 
be determined. This passage and ver. 33, with xviii. 8 and 1 Cor. i. 16, 
are appealed to in order to prove infant baptism in the apostolic age, or at 
least to make it probable. ‘‘ Quis credat, in tot familiis nullum fuisse in- 
fantem, et Judaeos circumcidendis, gentiles lustrandis illis assuetos non 
etiam obtulisse eos baptismo?’’ Bengel. See also Lange, apost. Zeitalt. I. 
p. 504 ff. But on this question the following remarks are to be made: (1) 
If, in the Jewish and Gentile families which were converted to Christ, there 
were children, their baptism is to be assumed in those cases, when they 
were so far advanced that they could and did confess their faith on Jesus 
as the Messiah ; for this was the universal, absolutely necessary qualifica- 
tion for the reception of baptism.’ (2) If, on the other hand, there were 
children still incapable of confessing, baptism could not be administered to 
those to whom that, which was the necessary presupposition of baptism for 
Christian sanctification, was still wanting. (8) Such young children, whose 
parents were Christians, rather fell under the point of view of 1 Cor. vil. 
14, according to which, in conformity with the view of the apostolic church, 
the children of Christians were no longer regarded as axa 3aprou, but as äayıoı, 
and that not on the footing of having received the character of holiness by 
baptism, but as having part in the Christian ayıöryc by their fellowship 
with their Christian parents. See on 1 Cor. l.c. Besides, the circumcision 
of children must have been retained for a considerable time among the 
Jewish-Christians, according to xxi. 21. Therefore (4) the baptism of the 
children of Christians, of which no trace is found in the N. T.,’° is not to be 


1 Grotius, de Wette, and others, ® Grotius, Kuinoel, Heinrichs. 

2 Hesychius, Phot. B2bl. 201. 41. 7 Comp. 2 Macc. i.4; Luke xxiv, 45; Eph. 

3 Val. Fl. iv. 868; Claud. Rapt. P. i. 274; i. 18. [427 f. 
Plin. H. N. vii. 57; Ael. 4. A. 4.46; Max. 8 Comp. Luthardt, vom freien Willen, p. 
Dvr xl. 2. 9 Comp. also vv. 31, 32, 33, xviii. 8. 

4 Ptol. v. 2; Plin, v. 31. 10 Not even in Eph. vi. 1, in opposition to 


5 See Spon. Miscell. erud. ant, p. 113. Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 192. 


312 CHAP. XVI., 16-18. 


held as an apostolic ordinance,' as, indeed, it encountered early and long 
resistance ; but it is an institution of the church,? which gradually arose in 
post-apostolic times in connection with the development of ecclesiastical 
life® and of doctrinal teaching, not certainly attested before Tertullian, and 
by him still decidedly opposed, and, although already defended by Cyprian, 
only becoming general after the time of Augustine in virtue of that con- 
nection. Yet, even apart from the ecclesiastical premiss of a stern doctrine 
of original sin and of the devil going beyond Scripture, from which even 
exorcism arose, the continued maintenance of infant baptism, as the objec- 
tive attribution of spiritually creative grace in virtue of the plan of sal- 
vation established for every individual in the fellowship of the church, is 
so much the more justified, as this objective attribution takes place with 
a view to the future subjective appropriation. And this subjective appro- 
priation has so necessarily to emerge with the development of self-conscious- 
ness and of knowledge through faith, that in default thereof the church 
would have to recognise in the baptized no true members, but only membra 
mortua. This relation of connection with creative grace, in so far as the 
church. is its sphere of operation, is a theme which, in presence of the 
attacks of Baptists and Rationalists, must overstep * the domain of exegesis ° 
and be worked out in that of dogmatics, yet without the addition of con- 
firmation as any sort of supplement to baptism. — ei xexpixare] if ye have 
judged. This judgment was formed either tacitly or openly on the ground 
of the whole conduct of Lydia even before her baptism,—the latter itself 
was a witness of it ; hence the perfect is here entirely in order, in opposition 
to Kuinoel, Heinrichs, and others, and is not to be taken for the present. 
— ei, in the sense of érei, is here chosen with delicate modesty.° — ye mor. 
t. Kup. elvac] that I am a believer in the Lord (Christ), i.e. giving faith to 
His word and His promise, which ye have proclaimed, vv. 13, 14. Comp. 
ver. 34, xviii. 8, where Bengel well remarks: ‘‘Ipse dominus Jesus testa- 
batur per Paulum.’’ — xapefidcaro|.7 The use of this purposely-chosen 
strong word, constraining, is not to be explained from the refusal at first of 
those requested,* but from the vehement urgency of the feeling of grati- 
tude (v?). 

Ver. 16. That Paul and his companions accepted this pressing invitation 
of Lydia, and chose her house for their abode, Luke leaves the reader to 
infer from kai mapeßıdoaro juac, ver. 15, and he now passes over to 
another circumstance which occurred on another walk to the same rpocevy7 
mentioned before. What now follows thus belongs to quite another day. 
Heinrichs and Kuinoel assume that it attached itself directly to the pre- 


1 Origen, in ep. ad Rom. lib. v.: “ Abapos- baptist. Frage, Gotha 1860, ed. 2, and Dog- 


tolis traditione accepit ecclesia.” mat. § 255. 

2]t is the most striking example of the 5 Matt. xviii. 14; Mark x. 13 ff.; Mait. 
recognition of historical tradition in the evan- xxviii. 19; Johniii. 6; Rom. vi. 3f.; Col. 
gelical church. Comp. Holtzmann, Kanon u. ii. 12, Tit. iii. 5; 1 Pet. iii. 21. See also 
Tradit. p. 399 ff. Richter in the Stud. w. Krit. 1861, p. 225 ff. 

3 Comp. Ehrenfeuchter, prakt. Theol. I. p. 6 Comp. Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 195. 

82 f. 7 Comp. Luke xxiv. 29; 1 Sam. xxviii. 23. 


4Comp. Martensen, d. christl. Taufe u. d. 8 Chrysostom, Bengel, comp, Ewald. 


A DEMONIAC WOMAN. 313 


ceding : that the conversion and baptism of Lydia had occurred while the 
women, ver. 13, were waiting at the rpooevyy for the commencement of 
divine worship ; and that, when they were about to enter into the zpocevy, 
this affair with the soothsaying damsel occurred. In opposition to this it 
may be urged, first, that ver. 15 would only interrupt and disturb the nar- 
rative, especially by kai mapeßıaoaro jude ; secondly, that the beginning of 
ver. 16 itself (éyévero dé) indicates the narration of anew event ; and thirdly, 
that the instruction and baptism of Lydia, and still more of her whole 
house, cannot naturally be limited to so short a period.—According to the 
reading &yovoav rvevua ridwva (see the critical remarks), the passage is to be 
interpreted : who was possessed by a spirit Python, i.e. by a demon, which 
prophesied from her belly. The damsel was a ventriloquist, and as such 
practised soothsaying. The name of the well-known Delphic dragon, 
Hodov,! became subsequently the name of a daiudviov uavrıröv,” but was also, 
according to Plut. de def. orac. 9, p. 414 E, used appellatively, and that of 
soothsayers, who spoke from the belly. So also Suidas: &yyaorpiuvdoc, éyyao- 
Tpiuavrıc, bv Tiveg viv TIDwva, LodoxAgce dé orepvöuavrıw. This use of rior, 
corresponding to the Hebrew 338, which the LXX. render by &yyaorpiuvdoc, 
Lev. xix. 31, xx. 6, 27,° and also passing over to the Rabbins,* is to be 
assumed in our passage, as otherwise we could not see why Luke should 
have used this peculiar word, whose specific meaning (ventriloquist-soothsayer) 
was certainly the less strange to him, as the thing itself had so impor- 
tant allusions in the O. T. and LXX. suggesting it to those possessed of 
Jewish culture,® just as among the Greeks the jugglery which the ventrilo- 
quists ° practised was well enough known.” Without doubt, the damsel 
was considered by those who had their fortunes told by her as possessed 
by a divinity ; and that she so regarded herself, is to be inferred from the 
effect of the apostolic word, ver. 18. Hers was a state of enthusiastic 
possession by this fixed idea, in which she actually might be capable of a 
certain clairvoyance, as in the transaction in our passage. Paul, in his 
Christian view,* regards this condition of hers as that of a demoniac ; 
Luke also so designates it, and treats her accordingly. —roic kvpioıc] There 
were thus several, who in succession or conjointly had her in service for the 
sake of gain.’ 

Vv. 17, 18. The soothsaying damsel, similar to asomnambulist,’® reads in 
the souls of the apostle and his companions, and announces their character- 
istic dignity. But Paul, after he had first patiently let her alone for many 
days, sees in her exclamation a recognition on the part of the demon dwell- 
ing within her, as Jesus Himself met with recognition and homage from 
demons ;™ and in order not to accept for himself and his work demoniacal 


1 Apollod. i. 4. 1. 6 The Evguxaets or EvpucaAetdat. 

2Suidas, who has the quotation: tas re 7 See Hermann, gottesd. Alterth. § xlii. 16. 
mvevpatt Iv@wvos évOovowoas ... nélov TO 8 Comp. 1 Cor. x. 20. (1761. 
€gomevov Tapayopevaat. ® Comp. Walch, de servis vet. fatidicis, Jen. 

3 See Schleusner, 7hes. II. p. 222. 10 But she was not asomnambulist. See 

4 R. Salomo on Deut, xviii. 11. Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 310. 


5 1 Sam. xxviii. 7. 11 Mark iii. 11. 


314 CHAP. XVI., 19-25. 


testimony, which would not of itself be hushed, at length being painfully 
grieved,' and turning to her as she followed him, he, in the name of Jesus 
Christ,? commands the demon to come out of her. Now, as the slave con- 
sidered Paul to be the servant of the most high God, who thus must have 
power over the god by whom she believed herself possessed, her fixed idea 
was at once destroyed by that command of power, and she was consequently 
restored from her overstrained state of mind to her former natural condition. 
Of a special set purpose, for which the slave made her exclamation, oitoz vi 
avd puro k.7.A.—Chrysostom : the god by whom she was possessed, Apollo, 
hoped, on account of this exclamation, to be left in possession of her ; 
Walch : the damsel so cried out, in order to get money from Paul; Ewald: 
in order to offer her services to them; Camerarius, Morus, Rosenmiiller, 
Heinrichs, Kuinoel : in order to exalt her own reputation—there is no hint 
in the text ; it was the involuntary and irresistible outburst of her morbid- 
ly exalted soothsaying nature. 

Vv. 19-21. The first persecution which is reported to us as stirred wp on 
the part of the Gentiles.* — éxi rovg apyovtac . . . Toic otpatnyoic] When they 
saw that with the departure of the god from the slave their hope of further 
gain had departed (é£7/ ev), they dragged Paul and Silas, not Timothy and 
Luke along with*them, but only the two principal persons, to the market, 
where, according to the custom of the Greeks, the courts of justice were 
erected, to the archons.* But these, the city-judges,° must have referred the 
matter to the orparnyoi ; and therefore the narrative proceeds: x. mpooaya- 
yovres aitoicg x.7.2. The accusation amounted to revolt against the Roman 
political authority.—The orparnyoi are the praetores, as the two chief Roman 
The name 
has its origin from the position of the old Greek strategoi.* — ixtapdac.] to 
bring into utter disorder. — juav r. 762. | judav prefixed with haughty emphasis, 
and answering to the following “though they are Jews.’’ —‘Popaiore odor] 
proud contrast to the odious ’Iovdaioı imapyorrec. Calvin aptly says: “* Ver- 
sute composita fuit haec criminatio ad gravandos Christi servos; nam ab 
una parte obtendunt Romanum nomen, quo nihil erat magis favorabile : 
rursum ex nomine Judaico, quod tune infame erat, conflant illis invidiam; 
nam quantum ad religionem, plus habebant Romani affinitatis cum aliis 
quibuslibet, quam cum gente Judaica.”’—The introduction of strange re- 
ligious customs and usages (#37), in opposition to the native religion, was 
strictly interdicted by the Romans.!° Possibly here also the yet fresh im- 
pression of the edict of Claudius" co-operated. 


magistrates ° in towns which were colonies called themselves.’ 


1 SLamovndeis, see on iv. 2. 

2 Comp. iii. 6, iv. 7. 

3 Comp. 1 Thess. ii. 2. 

4 Not different from roArrapyaı, xvii. 6. 

5 Comp. Luke xii. 58, and the archons in 
Athens in Hermann’s Staatsalterth. § 138. 

6 The duwmviri, Cic. de leg. agr. 35. 

7 Diod. Sic. T. X. p. 146, ed. Bip. : Zpict. ii. 
1. 26: Polyb. xxxiii. 1. 5; Spanheim ad 
Julian. Orat. I. p. 76, de usu et praest. num. 


I. p. 697, II. p. 601; Alberti, Obss. p. 253. 

8 Dem. 400, 26; Aristot. Polit. vii. 8, ed. 
Becker, II. p. 1322; Hermann, Staatsalterth. 
§ 153; Dorville, ad Char. p. 447. 

9 See on erwerAnpwre, Xiil.33 ; Plut. Coriol: 
19: “ Suberat utilitas privata ; publica obten- 
ditur,’’ Bengel. 

10 See Wetstein in loc. 

11 See on xviii. 2. 


IMPRISONMENT OF PAUL AND SILAS. 315 


Vv. 22,23. And at the same time (‘‘cum ancillae dominis,’’ Bengel) the 
multitude rose up, in a tumultuary manner, against them ; therefore the 
praetors, intimidated thereby, in order temporarily to still the urgency of 
the mob, commanded the accused to be scourged without examination, and 
then, until further orders, to be thrown into strict confinement. — repıppn£. 
aitov ra inarıa] after having torn off their clothes. The form of expression 
of ver. 23 shows that the praetors did not themselves, in opposition to Ben- 
gel, do this piece of work, which was necessary and customary for laying 
bare the upper part of the body,! but caused it to be done by their subor- 
dinate lietors. Erasmus erroneously desired to read airov, so that the 
praetors would have rent their own clothes from indignation. Apart from 
the non-Roman character of such a custom, there may be urged against this 
view the compound zepipp., which denotes that the rending took place all 
round about the whole body.” — éxé?evov] The reference of the relative tense 
is to the personal presence of the narrator.* — Paul and Silas submitted to 
this maltreatment, one of the three mentioned in 2 Cor, xi. 25, with silent 
self-denial, and without appealing to their Roman citizenship, committing 
everything to God ; see on ver. 37. Men of strong character may, amidst 
unjust suffering, exhibit in presence of their oppressors their moral defiance, 
even in resignation. We make this remark in opposition to Zeller,* who 
finds the brutal conduct of the praetors, and the non-employment by the 
apostles of their legal privilege in self-defence—which Paul, moreover, re- 
nounced not merely on this occasion, 2 Cor. xi, 25—inexplicable. Bengel 
well remarks: ‘‘Non semper omnibus praesidiis omni modo utendum ; 
divino regimini auscultandum.’ Ina similar plight, xxii. 25, Paul found 
it befitting to interpose an assertion of his privilege, which he here only 
uesd for the completion of his victory over the persecution, ver. 37,—a result 
which, in xxii. 25, according to the divine destination which he was aware 
of, he recognised as unattainable. 
~ Ver. 24. The zealous jailor fulfilled the command aooaAöc rypeiv by a two- 
fold measure ; he not only put the accused into the prison-ward situated, 
more than the other wards, in the interior of the house (eic 77V écwrépav 
ovAarv), but also secured their feet in the stocks. —eic rd EiAov, in nervum,? 
i.e. in the wooden block in which the feet, stretched apart from each other, 
were enclosed, called also rodoxary and rodoorpaßn in Heb, 70° (w’). 

Vv. 25, 26. In joyful consciousness of suffering for the glorification of 
Christ, v. 41, they sing in the solemn stillness of the night prayers of 
praise to God,’ and thereby keep their fellow-prisoners awake, so that they 
listened to them (erykpoovro). Whether these are to be conceived as con- 
fined in the same écurépay ov2axyv, or possibly near to it but more to the 
front, or whether they were in both localities, cannot be determined. 


1 Grotius and Wolf in loc. 5 Plaut. Captiv. iii. 5. 71; Liv. viii. 28. 

2 Plat. Crit. p. 113 D: mepippyyvuce KvKay, 6 Job xiii. 27, xxxiil. 11. See Herod. vi. 75, 
Polyb. xv. 38, 4, al.; comp. Tittmann, Synon. ix. 37, and later writers, Grotius and Wetstein 
p. 221. in loc. 

2 See Winer, p. 253 (EH. T. 337). 7 ‘*Nihil crus sentit in nervo, quum animus 


4 Comp. Baur. in coelo est,'’ Tertull. 


316 CHAP. XVI., 26-35. 


Then suddenly there arises an earthquake, etc. God at once rewards—this 
is the significant relation of vv. 25 and 26—the joy of faith and of suf- 
fering on the part of Paul and Silas by miraculous interposition. The 
objection, which Baur and Zeller! take to the truth of this narrative, turns 
on the presupposed inconceivableness of miracles in general. In connec- 
tion with the fiction assumed by them, even the éxyxpodvto . . . déopeor is 
supposed only to have for its object ‘‘to make good the casual connection 
between the earthquake and the prayer’’ (Zeller). — ravrwv] thus also of 
those possibly to be found in other parts of the prison.? The reading 
aveAvdy (Bornemann) is a correct gloss. 

Vv. 27, 28. The jailer, aroused by the shock and the noise, hastens to 
the prison, and when he sees the doors which, one behind another, led to 
it open, and so takes it for granted that the prisoners have escaped, he 
wishes, from fear of the vengeance of the praetors, to kill himself — which, 
in opposition to Zeller’s objection, he may have sufficiently indicated by 
expressions of his despair. Then Paul calls, ete. — yayarpav| a sword, which 
he got just at hand ;* with the article it would denote the sword which he 
was then wearing, his sword. —äravrsc] Thus the rest of the prisoners, 
involuntarily detained by the whole miraculous event, and certainly also 
in part by the imposing example of Paul and Silas, had not used their re- 
lease from chains (ver. 26) and the opening of the prison for their own 
liberation. The évdade does not affirm that they had all come together into 
the prison of Paul, but only stands opposed to éamegevyévar. None is away; 
we are, all and every one, here ! — The loosening of the chains, moreover, and 
that without any injury to the limbs of the enchained, is, in view of the 
miraculous character of the event, not to be judged according to the laws 
of mechanics, in opposition to Gfrérer, Zeller, any more than the omission 
of flight on the part of the other prisoners is to be judged according to the 
usual practice of criminals. The prisoners were arrested, and felt them- 
selves sympathetically detained by the miracle which had happened ; and 
therefore the suggestion to which Chrysostom has recourse, that they had 
not seen the opening of the doors, is inappropriate. 

Vy. 29, 30. bara] Lights, i.e. lamps,* several, in order to light up and 
strictly search everything. — évrpopoc yevdu. mpooer.]| He now saw in Paul 
and Silas no longer criminals, but the favourites and confidants of the gods ; 
the majesty which had been maltreated inspired him with terror and re- 
spectful submission. —iva cwda| in order that I may obtain salvation. He 
means the owrnpia, which Paul and Silas had announced ; for what he had 
heard of them, that they made known ödöv owrnpiac, ver. 17, was now 
established in his conviction as truth. This lively conviction longs to have 
part in the salvation, and hissincere longing desires to fulfil that by which 
this participation is conditioned. Morus, Stolz, Rosenmüller render it : “in 
order that I may escape the punishment of the gods on account of your 


1 Comp. Gfrörer, heil. Sage, I. p. 446. 3 Mark xiv. 47. 

2On avedn, comp. Plut. Alex. 73: rods 4Xen. Zell. v. 1. 8; Lucian. Conviw. 15; 
Secpovs aveivar. Eustath ad Od. viii. p. 313. Plat. Ant. 26. 
ure 


CONVERSION OF THE JAILER. 317. 


harsh treatment.’’ But, if Luke desired to have ow0é and cw9fon, ver. 31, un- 
derstood in different senses, he must have appended to cw a more precise 
definition; for the meaning thus assigned to it suggests itself the less 
naturally, as the jailer, who had only acted as an instrument under higher 
direction,! could not reasonably apprehend any vengeance of the gods. 

Vy. 31, 32. The epanorthosis cd kai 6 oikög cov extends to riorevoov and 
owdhon. — They lay down faith on Jesus as the condition of owrmpia, and 
nothing else ; but saving faith is always in the N. T. that which has holiness 
as its effect, Rom. vi, not ‘a human figment and opinion which the 
depths of the heart never get to know,’’ but ‘‘a divine work in us which 
transforms and begets us anew from God,’’? without, however, making justi- 
fication, which is the act of the imputation of faith, to include sanctifica- 
tion.*— For the sake of this requirement of believing, they set forth the 
gospel to the father of the family and all his household.* 

Vv. 33, 34. Tlaparaß. aitoic . . . éhovcev| he took and washed them (x?). 
Vividness of delineation. Probably he led them to a neighbouring water, 
perhaps in the court of the house, in which his baptism and that of his 
household was immediately completed.’ — ano rov rAyyor| a pregnant ex- 
pression : so that they were cleansed from the stripes—from the blood of the in- 
flicted wounds, ver. 22 f.°— rapaypjua] the adverb emphatically placed at 
the end.’ — avayayév| We are to think of the official dwelling of the jailer 
as being built above the prison cells.” — rap£dnke tpdxetav] quite the Latin 
apposuit mensam, i.e., he gave a repast ; to be explained from the custom of 
setting out the table before those who were to be entertained.* — ravocki| 
ovv 6Aw ro oikw, Phavorinus. It belongs to rerıor. A more classical form," 
according to the Atticists, would have been ravoıki« or mavoınnoia." — 
memiarevkac TO Bew] because he had become and was a believer on God (perfect). 
He, the Gentile, now believed the divine promises of salvation announced 
to him by Paul and Silas.’? That this his wıoreverw was definitely Christian 
faith, and accordingly equivalent to mıoreveıw TO Kupiw, was self-evident to 
the reader.’* — That, after ver. 34, Paul and Silas had returned to prison, 
follows from vv. 36-40. 

Vv. 35, 36. The news of the miraculous earthquake, perhaps also the 
particulars which they might in the meantime have learned concerning the 
two prisoners, may have made the praetors have scruples concerning the 
hasty maltreatment. They consider it advisable to have nothing further 


1 Comp. Chrysost. 

2 Luther’s Prefuce to the Epistle to the Ro- 
mans. 

3 See on Rom. i. 1%. 

4 See on viii. 25. 

5 This is confirmed by the fact that baptism 
took place by complete immersion,—in oppo- 
sition to Baumgarten, p. 515, who, transfer- 
ring the performance of baptism to the house, 
finds here ‘‘an approximation to the later 
custom of simplifying the ceremony,”’ accord- 
ing to which complete immersion did not 
take place. Immersion was, in fact, quite an 


essential part of the symbolism of baptism 
(Rom. vi.). 

6 See Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 276 f. (E. T. 
3ER). 

7 Comp. on Matt. ii. 10, and Kühner, § 863. 1. 

8 Comp. ix. 39; Luke iv. 5, xxii. 67. 

®Hom. Od. v. 92, xxi. 29; Polyb. xxxix. 
2. 11. 

10 Yet see Plat. Zryx. p. 392 C. 

11 Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 514 ff. See exam- 
ples from Philo in Loesner, p. 208. 

12 Ver. 32; comp. ver. 15, xviii. 8. 

13 See also ver. 32. 


818 CHAP. XVI., 37-40. 


to do with them, and to get rid of them forthwith by releasing them. 
Curtly and contemptuously (roi¢ avdp. Exeivovc), in order to maintain at least 
thereby their stern official attitude, they notified the order by their lictors 
(jaBdobyouc, bearers of the fasces) to the jailer, who, with congratulatory 
sympathy, announces it to the prisoners. According to Baumgarten, the 
motives for the severity of the previous day had lost their force with the 
praetors during the night—a point in which there is expressed a distinction 
from the persistent enmity of the Sanhedrists in Jerusalem. But this 
would furnish an adequate ground for a proceeding running so entirely 
counter to the course of criminal procedure. The praetors must have be- 
come haunted by apprehension and ill at ease, and they must therefore have 
received some sort of information concerning the miraculous occurrences. — 
év eipyvn] happily.' 

Ver. 37. TIpöc airoic] to the jailer and the lictors ; the latter had thus in 
the meantime come themselves into the prison. — deipavrec x.7.A.] after 
they had beaten us publicly without judicial condemnation,—us who are Romans. 
This sets forth, in terse language precisely embracing the several elements, 
their treatment as an open violation, partly of the law of nature and nations 
in general,” partly of the Roman law in particular. For exemption from 
the disgrace of being scourged by rods and whips was secured to every 
Roman citizen by the Zex Valeria in the year 254 v.c.,’ and by the Lex 
Poreia in the year 506 v.c.,* before every Roman tribunal ;° therefore Cicero, 
in Verr. v. 57, says of the exclamation, Civis Romanus sum: ‘‘ saepe multis 
in ultimis terris opem inter barbaros et salutem tulit.’? — That Silas was 
also a Roman citizen, is rightly inferred from the plural form of expression, 
in which there is no reason to find a mere synecdoche. The distinction, 
which was implied in the bestowal of this privilege, cannot be adduced 
against the historical character of the narrative (Zeller), as we know not 
the occasion and circumstances of its acquisition. But how had Paul, by 
his birth, xxii. 18, Roman citizenship? Certainly not simply as a native of 
Tarsus. For Tarsus was neither a colonia nor a municipium, but an urbs 
libera, to which the privilege of having governing authorities of its own, 
under the recognition, however, of the Roman supremacy, was given by 
Augustus after the civil war, as well as other privileges,° but not Roman 
citizenship ; for this very fact would, least of all, have remained historically 
unknown, and acquaintance with the origin of the apostle from Tarsus 
would have protected him from the decree of scourging.” This much, 
therefore, only may be surely decided, that hıs father or a yet earlier an- 
cestor had acquired the privilege of citizenship either as a reward of merit* 
or by purchase,’ and had transmitted it to the apostle. According to 
Zeller’s arbitrary preconceptions, the mention of the Roman citizenship 





1 See on Mark v. 34; comp. on xv. 33 5 Comp. Euseb. H. E. v. 1. 
2 axataxpttovs, found neither in the LXX, 6 Dio Chrys. IL. p 36, ed. Reiske. 
or Apocrypha, nor in Greek writers. 7 See xxi. 29, comp. with xxii. 24 ff. 
3 Liv. ii.8; Valer. Max. iv.1; Dion. Hal. 8 Suet. Aug. 47. 
Vv. p. 292. 9 xxii. 28; Die Cass. lx. 17; Joseph. Bell. 


4 Liv. x. 9; Cic. pro Rabir. 4. Jud. ii. 14. 


RELEASE FROM PRISON. 319 


here and in chap. xxii. had only the unhistorical purpose in view ‘ of rec- 
ommending the apostle tothe Romans as a native Roman.’ — «ai viv Addpa 
qua Exßa7A.] is indignantly opposed to deipavres judg dmuooia . . . EBarov eic 
ouvAarzv: and now do they cast us out secretly? The present denotes the 
action as already begun, by the order given. Paul, however, for the 
honour of himself and his work, disdains this secret dismissal, that it might 
not appear—and this the praetors intended !—that he and Silas had escaped. 
On the previous day he had, on the contrary, disdained to avert the mal- 
treatment by an appeal to his citizenship, see on ver. 23. The usual 
opinion is! that the tumult in the forum had prevented him from asserting 
his citizenship. But it is obvious of itself that even the worst tumult, at 
ver. 22 or ver. 23, would have admitted a “ Civis Romanus sum,’ had Paul 
wished to make such an appeal. — oi yap, a22a] not so, but. It is to be 
analyzed thus: for they are not to cast us out secretly ; on the contrary 
(a72a) they are, ete. yap specifies the reason why the preceding, indignant 
question is put, and a?%a answers adversatively to the ob.?— aizoi] in their 
own persons they are to bring us out. 

Vv. 38, 39. ’Eooßnßncav] The reproach gontained in äxararpirovc did not 
trouble them, but the violation of citizenship was an offence against the 
majesty of the Roman people, and as such was severely punished.* — Ver. 
39. What a change in the state of affairs: éAVdvte¢ . . . maperalecav, name- 
ly, toacquiesce, . . . éayaydvre¢ . . . potov !— éképyeoda with the simple 
genitive, asin Matt. x. 14. Very frequent with Greek writers since subse- 
quent to Homer. On rapakadeiv, to give fair words, comp. on 1 Cor. iv. 13. 

Ver. 40. Before they comply with the &2eAdeiv r7c röAewc, ver. 39, the 
apostolie heartfelt longing constrains them first to repair to the house of 
Lydia, to exhort (raperaAscav) the new converts assembled there that they 
should not become wavering in their Christian confession. And from this 
house grew the church, to which, of all that Paul founded, he has erected 
the most eulogistic monument in his Epistle—in this sense also the first 
church which he established in Europe. — é£7230v] Only Paul and Silas, as 
they alone were affected by the inquiry, appear now to have departed from 
Philippi. Zuke at least, as the use of the third person teaches us, did not 
go with them. Paul left him behind to build up the youthful church. 
Whether, however, Timothy (vv. 1 ff.) also remained behind, cannot be de- 
termined. He is not again named until xvii. 14, but he may nevertheless 
have already departed from Philippi, and need not necessarily have rejoined 
them till in Beroea or Thessalonica. 


Remarx.—In the rejection of the entire history as history Baur and Zeller 
(comp. Hausrath) essentially agree ; it is alleged to be formed in accordance 
with xii. 7 ff., as an apologetic parallelism of Paul with Peter. But as Philip- 
pian persecutions are mentioned also in 1 Thess. ii. 2, the opinions formed by 
them concerning the relation of the two passages are opposite. Baur makes 1 


1 So also de Wette. Protag. p. 343 D, and the examples in Wet- 
2Sce Hartung, Partikell. II. p 48; comp. stein. 
Devar. p. 169, ed. Klotz; also Stallb. ad 3 Dion. Hal. xi. p. 725; Grotius ön loc. 


320 CHAP. XVI.—NOTES. 


Thess. ii. 2 to be derived from the narrative before us; whereas Zeller, con- 
sidering the Epistles to the Thessalonians as older, supposes the author of the 
Acts to have ‘‘ concocted”’ (p. 258) his narrative from 1 Thess, ii. 2. 


Notes BY AMERICAN EDITOR. 


(1?) We endeavored to go. Y.10. 


«It is observable that the first person is here introduced for the first time, 
the author thus intimating his presence. From this it appears that Luke 
joined Paul’s company at Troas.’’ Meyer supposes the reason why Luke never 
mentions his own name throughout the entire history to be that Theophilus 
was well acquainted with his personal relations to Paul. Olshausen suggests, 
Meyer says arbitrarily, we think with great probability, a feeling of modesty on 
the part of Luke. Some, in view of the fact that the apostle had only recently 
recovered from a severe illness (see y. 6, and Gal. iv. 13), suppose ‘‘that Luke, 
the beloved physician,’’ accompanied him, to watch over his health. From 
this time till the last imprisonment at Rome, with but two brief intervals, he 
was the great apostle’s constant attendant. In the very last of his Epistles the 
apostle, writing in full view of a violent death, and forsaken by many, touch- 
ingly says: “Only Luke is with me” (2 Tim. iv. 11). Another hypothesis is 
that Luke makes use of a history written by Silas or Timothy; but this is not 
probable in itself, and if true would have produced an eariier change in the form 
of the narrative. These four, then—Paul, Silas, Timothy, and Luke—after a 
brief voyage from Troas, landed at Neapolis, and so the first Christian apostle 
landed in Europe. It is probable, however, ere this time that the gospel had 
been preached in Rome by some of the dispersion, but not by an apostle. Dr. 
Taylor writes: ‘‘ That voyage stands out by itself as unique as it is glorious. 
They went to plant a seed from which have sprung liberty, law, progress, and 
religion on that continent, and all the blessings which, in this western land, we 
now enjoy. The gigantic trees in the Mariposa grove sprung each from a seed 
no bigger than a grain of wheat, though it took them centuries to grow. Here, 
in the landing of Paul with the gospel at Neapolis, we have the germ out of 
which European and American Christianity has been developed.” 


(0?) The chief city. V. 12. 


Various opinions are held as to the meaning of this description of Philippi, 
nporn möAıs—the obvious meaning is chief city or capital ; but Thessalonica 
was the capital, or capital of that part of Macedonia where Paul then was ; but 
Amphipolis held that position. Some would change the reading from zpérn 
775 to mpwryS, a city of the first part of Macedonia; but the authority of the mss. 
is against such change. Others understand the phrase to mean a chief town. 
Others, with Meyer, unite the two words zporn 76/15 with xo?.ovia—the first colo- 
nial city of the district—the most distinguished in point of importance. Many 
others render it the first city of Macedonia proper at which Paul arrived ; and 
this appears to be the correct idea. “‘ The purpose of the narrator is to define 
the geographical position, and not the political importance of Philippi. He 
means to say that to one entering Macedonia from the Thracian frontier in that 
district, Philippi is the first city on his route.’’ ( Taylor.) 


NOTES, ook 


(v?) She was baptized and her household. Y. 15. 


This verse has often been quoted as evidence that infant baptism was the 
practice of the apostolic age. Commentators are divided in opinion on the 
force of the evidence afforded. The passage in itself cannot be adduced either 
for or against infant baptism. It might be a presumption in favor of it. 
“The practice itself rests on firmer grounds than a precarious induction from 
a few ambiguous passages.” (Plumtre.) The subject, however, does not prop. 
erly fall under the domain of exegesis, but must be, as Meyer says, ‘‘ worked 
out in that of dogmatics, ” 


(w?) Into the inner prison. Y. 24. 


In the Roman prisons there were usually three distinct stories, one above an- 
other—the communiora, or upper flat, where the prisoners had light and fresh 
air ; the interiora, or lower flat, shut off with strong iron gates, with bars and 
locks ; the tullianum, or lowest flat or dungeon, the place for one condemned to 
die. Into this dark, damp, underground, filthy, stifling pit, after having been 
stripped, beaten with great severity, and bound with an instrument of torture, 
the unoffending preachers were thrust with unfeeling alacrity. ‘Yet over all 
this complication of miseries the souls of Paul and Silas rose in triumph. 
With heroic cheerfulness they solaced the long black hours of midnight with 
prayer and hymns. To every Jew, as to every Christian, the psalms of David 
furnished an inexhaustible storehouse of sacred song.” ‘* Never, probably, 
had such a scene occurred before in the world’s history, and this perfect tri- 
umph of the spirit of peace and joy over shame and agony was an omen of 
what Christianity would afterwards effect. And while they sang, and while 
the prisoners listened, perhaps, to verses which ‘out of the deeps’ called on 
Jehovah, or ‘ fled to him before the morning watch,’ or sang— 


‘The plowers plowed upon my back and made long furrows, 
But the righteous Lord hath hewn the snares of the ungodly in pieces,’ 


or triumphantly told how God had ‘burst the gates of brass, and smitten the 
bars asunder.’ Suddenly there was felt the great shock of earthquake, which 
rocked the very foundation of the prison.” (Furrar.) This is the first in- 
stance recorded of a persecution against the Christians by the Roman authori- 
ties. Hitherto either the Jews themselves, or the multitude instigated by them, 
had persecuted the disciples ; but there had been no interference on the part 
of the Roman government. The accusation against them was not on religious 
grounds, or because they preached Jesus and the resurrection ; but it was based 
on political grounds, charging them with being disturbers of the peace, and 
teaching practices contrary to Roman customs. On this charge against the 
apostles Calvin writes: “This accusation is craftily composed to burden the 
servants of Christ. For on the one side they pretend the name of the Romans, 
than which nothing was more favorable; on the other, they purchase hatred 
and bring them in contempt by warning the Jews, which name was at that 
time infamous ; for, as touching religion, the Romans were more like to any than 
to the Jewish nation. Forit was lawful for one which was a Roman to do sac- 
rifice either in Asia or in Grecia, or in any other country where were idols and 
superstitions. They frame a third accusation out of the crime of sedition, for 


322 CHAP. XVI.—NOTES. 


they pretend that the public peace is troubled by Paul and his company. In 
like sort was Christ brought into contempt (odiose traductus fuit).” 


(x?) And washed their stripes. \V. 33. 


The twofold washings—that which evidenced the true repentance, awakened 
gratitude, and kindly reverence of the jailer for his prisoners, and that which 
they administered to him, as the sign of the washing of regeneration—are 
placed in close and suggestive juxtaposition. As Chrysostom beautifully ex- 
presses it : ‘‘ &Aovoev adrodS Kad EAobm' Exeivovs piv and TAY TAnydY EAovoev, AUTOS 
68 and THY duaptiGy éAovon—He washed them, and he was washed ; he washed 
them from their stripes, he himself was washed from his sins,” 


CRITICAL REMARKS. 523 


CHAPTER, 2X6V i 


VER. 2. dueAéyeto] AB NS, min. have dveAegato (so Lachm.). DE, min. have 
dveAéx6n, which Griesb. has recommended and Born. adopted. Different altera- 
tions of the imperf. into the aor. (in conformity with eioynde). — Ver. 4. After 
oeBou. Lachm. has «ai (A D lot. Vulg. Copt.). Offence was taken at the combi- 
nation oeBou, 'EAAyv., and therefore sometimes ‘EAArw. was omttted (min. 
Theophyl. 1), sometimes kai was inserted. — Ver. 5. mpooAuß. d2 oi ’Iovd.] So 
Griesb. But Elz. has (nAvoavres 02 of ameıboüvres ’Iovdaioı, Kal rpooAaß. 
Lachm. : (mAooavres d2 of 'Iovd. kai npoAaß., which also Rinck prefers. Mat- 
thaei: mpooAaß. dé of ’Iovd. of areıd. So Scholz and Tisch. Still other varia- 
tions in codd. vss. and Fathers (D: ol d? ameobvtes ’Iovdaioı ovorpäbavres, SO 
Born.). The reading of Lachm. has most external evidence in its favour (A 
B &, min. Vulg. Copt. Sahid. Syr. utr.), and it is the more to be preferred, 
since that of Griesb., from which otherwise, on account of its simplicity, the 
others might have arisen as amplifications in the form of glosses, is only pre- 
served in 142, and consequently is almost entirely destitute of critical warrant ; 
the areıdoövres in the Recepta betrays itself as an addition (from xiv. 2), partly 
from its being exchanged in several witnesses for amecfjoavtes, and partly from 
the variety of its position (E has it only after rovypovs). — ayayeiv] So H, min. 
Chrys. Theoph. Oec. But D, 104, Copt. Sahid. have &$ayayeıv (so Born.) ; A 
B &, min. Vulg. : mpoayayeiv (so Lachm.); E: mpocayayew ; G, 11: avayayew. 
All of them more definite interpretations. — Ver. 13. After saAevovres, Lachm. 
and Born. have «ai tapacoovreS. So ABD, S, min. and several vss. But oad. 
was easily explained after ver. 8 by rap. as a gloss, which was then joined by 
kai with the text. — Ver. 14. os] A BE NSS, min. have és, which Lachm. has 
adopted. But és was not understood, and therefore was sometimes changed 
into éwS, sometimes omitted (D, min. vss.). — Ver. 15. After 7yayov, Elz. Scholz 
have airdév, against preponderating testimony. A familiar supplement. — Ver. 
16. dewpoövrı] Lachm. and Tisch. read @ewpodvtos, which also Griesb. recom- 
mended, after A BE, N, min. Fathers. Rightly ; the dative is adapted to the 
auro. — Ver. 18. Instead of abro:s (which with Lachm., according to witnesses 
of some moment, is to be placed after einyyeA.) Rinck would prefer aizod, 
according to later codd. and some vss. A result of the erroneous reference of 
the absolute tv avacraow to the resurrection of Jesus. The pronoun is en- 
tirely wanting in BGN, min. Chrys, So Tisch.; and correctly, both on 
account of the frequency of the addition, and on account of the variety of the 
order. In D the whole passage örı . . . ednyyedivero is wanting, which Born. 
approves. — Ver. 20. Instead of ri dv, AB N, min. vss, have riva, and instead 
of H&Aoı: OéAer. Lachm. has adopted both. But TIAN was the more easily 
converted after the preceding rıva into TINA, as taira follows afterwards. The 
removal of the dv then occasioned the indicative. — Ver. 21. kat akovew] 
Lachm. Tisch. Born read 7) axovew, which according to A BD &, Vulg. Sahid. 
Syr, p. is to be adopted. -— Ver. 23. Instead of öv and toirov, A* B D &* 


324 CHAP. XVII, 1-6. 


lot: Vulg. Cant. Or. Jer. have 6 and rovro. So Lachm. Tisch. Born. Rightly ; 
the masculine is an old alteration (Clem. already has it) in accordance with 
what precedes and follows. — Ver. 25. avßporivov] Elz. Scholz have avfpörur, 
against decisive evidence. — kai ra ravta] BG H most min. and some vss. and 
Fathers have cata mavra. So Mill. and Matth. An error of transcribers, to 
whose minds xara rävra, from ver. 22, was still present. — Ver. 26. aliuaros] is 
wanting in A B®, min. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Vulg. Clem. Beda, Lachm. The 
omission easily took place after &v0O2. Had there been a gloss, avdporov would 
most naturally have suggested itself ; comp. Rom. v. 12 ff. — rdv TO rp6owrov] 
Lachm. Tisch. Born. read ravros mpoowrov, according to A B D NS, min, Clem. 
But the article is necessary, and in the scriptio continua IIANTO was easily 
taken together, and ravros made of it. — mpoorerayu.] Elz. Born. read mpore- 
rayı., against decisive testimony. A frequent interchange. — Ver. 27. Kypıov] 
Griesb. Lachm. read 0¢6v, according to A B G H &, min. and several vss. and 
Fathers. So Tisch. and Born. But certainly an interpretation, which was 
here in particular naturally suggested, as Paul is speaking to Athenians. To 
6ciov in D, Clem. Ir. Ambr., inserted from ver. 29, is yet more adapted to this 
standpoint. — kairoıye] SON. But BD GH, min. Fathers read xaiye, which 
Griesb. has recommended, and Lachm. Tisch. Born. have adopted. A E, 
Clem. read xairoı. See on xiv. 17. — Ver. 30. mäacı] A B D** E 8, min. Ath. 
Cyr. and vss. have mdvras. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. 
Born. ; and rightly. The dative came in after avOpoemos.— Ver. 31. dıöre] 
Lachm. Tisch. Born, read xadörı, according to AB DE 8, min. and Fathers. 
Rightly ; it was supplanted by the more usual diorı. 


Ver. 1. Amphipolis, an Athenian colony, at that time the capital of Mace- 
donia prima, comp. on xvi. 12, around which on both sides flowed the 
Strymon. Apollonia, belonging to the Macedonian province Mygdonia, 
was situated 30 miles to the south-west. It is not to be confounded with 
Apollonia in Macedonian Illyria. Thessalonica lay 36 miles to the west of 
Apollonia—so called either, and this is the most probable opinion, by its 
rebuilder and embellisher, Cassander, in honour of his wife Thessalonica,! 
or earlier by Philip, as a memorial of his subjection of Thessaly,? at an 
earlier period Therme,—on the Thermaic gulf, the capital of the second 
district of Macedonia, the seat of the Roman governor, flourishing by its 
commerce, now the large and populous Saloniki, still inhabited by numer- 
ous Jews. °— 7 ovvaywy7| Beza held the article to be without significance. 
The same error occasioned the omission’ of 7 in A B D x, min. Lachm. 
But the article marks the synagogue in Thessalonica as the only one in all 
that neighbourhood. Paul and Silas halted at the seat of the synagogue of the 
district, according to their principle of attempting their work in the first 
instance among the Jews (Y?). 

Vv. 2-4. Kara dé 76 eiwd. rö TI.) Comp. Luke iv. 16. The construction 
is by way of attraction (kara dé r. eiwd. aurö elonAbev 6 HavAoc), with antict- 
pation of the subject. ° — duedéyero abroic] he carried on colloquies with them. 


1 Dionys. Hal., Strabo, Zonaras. 4 Approved by Buttmann in the Stud. w. 
2 Stephan. Byz., Tzetzes. Krit. 1860, p. 360. 
3 See Lünemann on 1 Thers. Introd. § 1. 5 Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 116 (E. T. 133). 


PAUL AT THESSALONICA. 325 


Thus frequently in and after Plato, with the dative or xpöc,!in which com- 
binations it is never the simple facere verba ad aliquem, in opposition to de 
Wette, not even in xviii. 19, xx. 7, nor even in Heb. xii. 5, where the pa- 
ternal rapakanow speaks with the children.” The form of dialogue, Luke 
ii. 46 f., was not unsuitable even in the synagogue; Jesus Himself thus 
taught in the synagogue, John vi. 25-59; Matt. xii. 9 ff. ; Luke iv. 16 ff. — 
ard rov ypag.| starting from the Scriptures, deriving his doctrinal propositions 
from them.* Is ard rov ypag. to be connected with det. abroic* or with 
The latter is, on account of the greater emphasis which 
thus falls on ürö 7. yp., to be preferred. — dıavoiy. x. raparıd.| Upon what 
Paul laid down as doctrine, thetically, he previously gave information, by 
analytical development.° Bengel well remarks: ‘‘ Duo gradus, ut si quis 
nucleum fracto cortice et recludat et exemtum ponat in medio.” — 67 rov 
Xpiorov &deı (Luke xxiv. 26) x.r.2. is related to kai bre obroc K.7.2., a8 a gen- 
eral proposition of the history of salvation to its concrete realization and 
manifestation. The latter is to be taken thus: and that this Messiah, no 
other than He who had to suffer and rise again, Jesus is, whom I preach to 
you. Accordingly, Ijcove öv é. kar. bu. is the subject, and oitoc 6 Xpucréde 
the predicate. By this arrangement the chief stress falls on ’Inooüc k.r.A., 
and in the predicate oöroc, which, according to the preceding, represents 
the only true Seriptural Messiah, has the emphasis, which is further brought 
out by the interposition of &ori between oitoc and 6 Xpicréc. —éyé] em- 
phatic: I for my part. As to the oratio variata, see on i. 4. — rpocexdnp. | is 
not to be taken as middle,’ but as passive: they were assigned by God to 
them, as belonging to them, as pa@yrai. Only here in the N. T.* — rivec 

roAv tAqHoc| The proselytes were more free from prejudice than the 
native Jews. 

Vv. 5, 6. ZyAdcarrec (see the critical remarks) : filled with zeal, and having 
taken to themselves, namely, as abettors towards producing the intended ris- 
ing of the people. — ayopaioı] are market-loungers, idlers, a rabble which, 
without regular business-avocations, frequents the public places, subrostrani, 
subbasilicani.” The distinction which old grammarians make between ayopaio¢ 
and ayéparoc appears to be groundless from the conflicting character of their 
statements themselves.!° — Whether Jason is an originally Hellenic name, 
or only a Hellenic transformation of the Jewish Jesus, as according to 
Joseph. Antt. xii. 5. 1 was certainly the case with the high priest in 2 
Macc. i. 7, iv. 7 ff., remains entirely undecided from our want of knowl- 
edge as to the man himself. It was his house before which they suddenly 


dıavoiywv K.T.A.?? 


1 Mark ix. 34; Acts xvii. 17, 

2 Comp. Delitzsch in loc. p. 612. 

3 Comp. xxviii. 23 ; Winer, p. 349 (E. T. 465). 

4 So Vulg., Luther, and many others, Winer 
and de Wette. 


3; Loesner, p. 209 f. 

% See Herod. ii. 141; Plat. Prot. 347 C, and 
Ast in loc. 

10 Suidas : the former is 0 Ev rn ayopa avac- 
Tpepomevos avOpwros, the latter 7 nuepa ev 7 


5 Pricaeus, Grotius, Elsner, Morus, Rosen- 
miiller, Valckenaer, Kuinoel, Ewald. 

6 Stavoiy., Luke xxiv. 32. 

7 Comp. Eph. i. 11. 


8 But see Plut. Mor. p.'788 D; Lucian. Amor. 


ayopa TeActTar, Whereas Ammonius says: the 
former denotes tov ev ayope Tıuwpevor, the 
latter tov movnpov tov Ev ayopa TEeApay.mevov ; 
see Göttling, Accentl. p. 297. Comp. Stepha- 
nus, 7hes. I. p. 430, ed. Paris. 


326 CHAP. XVII., 7-15. 

appeared,' because this was known to them as the place where Paul and 
Silas were lodged. These two, however, were absent, either accidentally, 
or designedly after receiving information. — röv ‘Iacova x. tiwag adedo.) as 
accomplices, and Jason also as such, and at the same time as the responsi- 
ble host of the insurgents. — roAırapxac] like rovc apyovrac, xvi. 19. Designa- 
tion of the judicial personages acting as magistrates of the city.” — oi ryv oikovn. 
avaorar.] who have made the world rebellious! The exaggerative character of 
the passionate accusation, especially after what had already taken place 
amidst public excitement at Philippi, is a sufficient reason to set aside the 
opinion that the accusation bears the colouring of a later time, Baur, Zeller ; 
comp. xxiv. 5. — ävaoraröw, excito,* belongs to Alexandrian Greek.‘ 

Ver. 7. ‘Yrodédexrac] not secretly, which Erasmus finds in ié, but as in 
Luke x. 38, xix. 6. — As formerly in the case”of Jesus the Messianic name 
was made to serve as a basis for the charge of high treason, so here with 
the confessors of Jesus (oro ravrec) as the Messiah. Comp. xix. 12. Per- 
haps * the doctrine of the Parousia of the risen (ver. 3) Jesus had furnished 
a special handle for this accusation. — ovro: rävrec] ‘‘ Eos qui fugerant, et 
qui aderant notant,’’ Bengel. — artvavrı rov doyuar. Kaic.| in direct oppo- 
sition to the edicts of the emperor, which interdicted high treason and guarded 
the majesty of the Caesar.° — ßaoıh. Ay. Erepov elvat] Bara. in the wider 
sense, which includes also the imperial dignity.” 

Vv. 8, 9. ’Erapazav| This was alarm at revolutionary outrage and Roman 
vengeance. Comp. Matt. ii. 3. — %aßövres ro ixavév] Comp. Mark xy. 15, 
where ro ikavöv roıeiv rıvı 13: to satisfy one, so that he can demand nothing 
more. Therefore: after they had received satisfaction, so that for the pres- 
ent they might desist from further claims against the persons of the ac- 
cused, satisdatione accepta. Comp. Grotius. But whether this satisfaction 
took place by furnishing sureties or by lodging a deposit of money, remains 
undecided ; certainly its object was @ guarantee that no attempt against the 
Roman majesty should prevail or should occur. This is evident from the 
relation in which Aaßövrec 75 ikavöv necessarily stands with the point of 
complaint, ver. 7, and with the disquietude (érapazav) excited thereby. 
Therefore the opinions are to be rejected, that Aa£. r. ix. refers to security 
that Paul and Silas would appear in case of need before the court,® or that 
they would be no longer sheltered,’ or that they should immediately de- 
part.!° Moreover, it is erroneous, with Luther and Camerarius, to suppose 
that by ro ikavöv is meant a satisfactory vindication. Luke would certainly 
have brought out this more definitely ; and Aaßövrec denotes an actual 
receipt of the satisfaction (ro ixavév), as the context suggests nothing else. 
— Observe, too, how here—it is otherwise in xvi. 20—the politarchs did not 


1 &mıotavtes, comp. on Luke ii. 9. 

2 Boeckh. Jnscript. II. p. 53, No. 1967. moAi- 
rapxos is found in Aeneas Tacticus 26; else- 
where in classic Greek, moAtapxos. Pind. Wem. 
vii. 123; Eur. hes. 381 ; Dio Cass. xl. 46. 

3 xxi. 38; Gal. v. 12. 

« Sturz, de Dial. Al, p. 146. Comp. ävaora- 
twoıs, Poll. iii. 91. 


5 See 1 and 2 Thess. 

6 On amevarrı, comp. Ecclus. xxxvi. 14, 
Xxxvii. 4. 

7 John xix. 15; 1 Pet. ii. 12; Herodian, i. 
6. 14. 

8 Grotius, Raphel. 

9 Michaelis, Heinrichs, comp. Ewald. 

10 Heumann, Kuinoel. 


x 


PAUL AT BEROEA. 327 
prosecute the matter further, but cut it short with the furnished guarantee, 
which was at least politically the most prudent course. 

Vv. 10-12. Acad r. vorr.] As in xvi. 9.— Beroea, a city in the third dis- 
trict of Macedonia,’ to the south-west of Thessalonica.? — arjecav] drew, 
so frequent in Greek writers, only here in the N. T.° They separated, 
after their arrival, from their companions, and went away to the syna- 
gogue. — evyeveorepoı] of a nobler character.* Theophyl. after Chrys.: 
émveckéorepot. An arbitrary limitation; tolerance is comprehended in the 
general nobleness of disposition. —rév év Oecoad.] than the Jews in Thes- 
salonica. — rö xa’ juépav| daily.” — avarpivovres tag yp.] searching the Seript- 
ures (John v. 39), namely, to prove: ei &yor raura, which Paul and Silas 
stated, oörwc, as they taught, ‘‘ Character verae religionis, quod se dijudi- 
cari patitur,’’ Bengel. — euoynu.] see on xiii. 50. — The Hellenic women and 
men are to be considered partly as proselytes of the gate who had heard 
the preaching of Christ in the synagogue, and partly as actual Gentiles 
who were gained in private conversations. Comp. on xi. 20. — 'EAAnvidov] 
construed with yvvarkov, but also to be referred to dvdpov.* — That the 
church of Beroea soon withered again, is quite as arbitrarily assumed by 
Baumgarten, as that it was the only one founded by Paul to which no 
letter of the apostle has come down to us. How many churches may Paul 
have founded of which we know nothing whatever ! (z’). 

Vv. 13-15. Kaxei] is to be connected, not with 7AAov, so that then the 
usual attraction would take place,” but with catetovrec ; for not the coming, 
but the oaAsvew, had formerly taken place elsewhere.— Ver. 14. Then 
immediately the brethren sent Paul away from the city, that he might journey 
Oc éxi tiv Gadaccay. Neither here nor elsewhere is oc redundant, but it 
indicates the definitely conceived purpose of the direction, which he had 
to take toward the sea, the Thermaic gulf.* Others® render it: as if toward 
the sea ; so that, in order to escape the snares, they took the road toward 
the sea only apparently, and then turned to the land-route. But in that 
case Luke, if he wished to be understood, would not have failed to add a 
remark counter to the mere semblance of the sop. éxi r. aA, especially as 
in what follows nothing necessarily points to a journey by land to Athens,” 
— 6 Tıu60.]) Where Timothy, supposing him to have remained behind at 
Philippi," again fell in with Paul and Silas, is uncertain. — &xei] in Beroea. 
— Ver. 15. kardıoravar] to bring to the spot ; then, to transport, to escort one.” 
—iva oc Tayiota K.r.A.]| See xviii, 5, according to which, however, they 


[Verria. 
Now 


ı Liv. xlv. 30. 

2 See Forbiger, Geogr. III. p. 1061. 

3 Comp. 4 Macc. vii. 8; 2 Macc. xii. 1. 

4 Plat. Def. p. 413 B, Polit. p. 310 A; Soph. 
Aj. 475 ; 4 Macc. vi. 5, ix. 27. [329. 

5 Comp. Luke xi. 3, xix. 47; Bernhardy, p. 

6 See Matthaei, § 441. 

7 See on Matt. ii. 22. 

8 See Winer, p.573 f. (E.T. 771); Hermann, 
ad Philoct. 56; Ellendt, Lex Soph. Ii. p. 
1004, 


® Beza, Piscator, Grotius, Er. Schmid, Ben- 
gel, Olshausen, Neander, Lange. 

10 Erasmus correctly observes: ‘‘ probabilius 
est eum navigavisse quia nulla fit 
mentio eorum, quae P. in itinere gesserit, cui 
fuerint tot civitates peragrandae.”’ 

11 See on xvi. 40. 

12 Not: who brought him in safety (Beza and. 
others’. Hom. Od. xiii. 274: rovs u’ éxéAevoa 
IIvAovöde (thus also by ship) karaoınoaı. Thuc. 
iv. 78, vi. 103.3; Xen. Anab. iv. 8. 8. 


328 CHAP. XVII., 16-20. 


only joined Paul at Corinth. But this, as regards Timothy, is an incorrect 
statement, as is clearly evident from 1 Thess. iii. 1,—a point which is to 
be acknowledged, and not to be smoothed over by harmonistic combina- 
tions! which do not tally with any of the two statements.? According to 
Baumgarten, Luke has only mentioned the presence of the two compan- 
ions again with Paul, xviii. 5, when their co-operation could again take an 
effective part in the diffusion of the gospel. But it is not their being to- 
gether, but their coming together, that is narrated in Acts xvill. 5 (AP). 

Ver. 16. Iapw£ivero] was irritated’ at the high degree of heathen dark- 
ness and perversity* which prevailed at Athens. —7ré rveüna abrov Ev auro] 
comp. John xi. 33, 38. — The genitive @ewpovvroc, mentally attached to aurov 
(see the eritical remarks): because he saw. — kareidwAov] full of images, of 
idols, not preserved elsewhere in Greek, but formed according to usual 
analogies (karaumeroc, karadevdpoc, karäxpvooc, karaAıdoc, al.). — Athens, the 
centre of Hellenic worship and art, united zeal for both in a pre-eminent 
degree, and was—especially at that period of political decay, when outward 
ritual and show in the sphere of religion and superstition flourished among 
the people alongside of the philosophical self-sufficiency of the higher 
scholastic wisdom among people of culture—full of temples and altars, of 
priests and other persons connected with worship, who had to minister at 
an innumerable number of pompous festivals. ° 

Ver. 17. Oöv] impelled by that indignation to counteract this heathen 
confusion. He had intended only to wait for his companions at Athens, 
but ‘‘insigni et extraordinario zelo stimulatus rem gerit miles Christi,’’ 
Bengel. And this zeal caused him, in order to pave the way for Christian- 
ity in opposition to the heathenism here so particularly powerful, to enter 
into controversial discussions® with Jews and Gentiles at the same time, not 
first with the Jews, and, on being rejected by them, afterwards with Gen- 
tiles. — &v r5 ayopa] favours the view that, as usual in Greek cities, there 
was only one market at Athens.” If there were two markets,® still the cele- 
brated ayopa kar' &£oxyyv» is to be understood,® not far from the Pnyx, the 
Acropolis, and the Areopagus, bounded by the oroa ro:kiAy on the west, by 
the Stoa Basileios and the Stoa Eleutherios on the south, rich in noble 
statues, the central seat of commercial, forensic, and philosophic inter- 
course, as well as of the busy idleness of the loungers (8°). 

Ver. 18. That it was Epicureans and Stoics who fell into conflict with him, '® 
and not Academics and Peripatetics, is to be explained—apart from the 
greater popularity of the two former, and from the circumstance that they 
were in this later period the most numerous at Athens—from the greater 
contrast of their philosophic tenets with the doctrines of Christianity. The 
one had their principle of pleasure, and the other their pride of virtue! 


1 Such as Otto, Pastoralbr. p. 61 f., makes. 6 See on ver. 2. 
2 See Liinemann on 1 Thess. iii. 1. 7 Forchhammer, Forbiger, and others. 
31 Cor. xiii. 5; Dem. 514. 10: wpyic6n Kai 8 So Otfried Müller and others. 
4 Rom. i. 21 ff. [rapwévvOn. 9 Not the Zretria (n viv &orıv ayopa, Strabo, 
5 See Paus. i. 24. 3; Strabo, x. p. 472; Liv. x. 10, p. 447). 
xlv. 27; Xen. Rep. Ath. iii. 2; and Wetstein 10 guveBadAov, comp. Luke xiv. 81. 


in loc. 


PAUL AT ATHENS, 329 


and both repudiated faith in the Divine Providence.!— The opinion of 
these philosophers was twofold. Some, with vain scholastic conceit, pro- 
nounced Paul’s discourses, which lacked the matter and form of Hellenic 
philosophy, to be idle talk, undeserving of attention, and would have 
nothing further to do with him. Others were at least curious about this 
new matter, considered the singular stranger as an announcer of strange 
divinities, and took him with them, in order to hear more from him and to 
allow their fellow-citizens to hear him, to the Areopagus, ete. — ri av béAox 
. . . Aéyey] if, namely, his speaking is to have a meaning.” — 6 oreppoddyoc] 
originally the rook.” Then in twofold figurative meaning: (1) from the 
manner in which that bird feeds, a parasite ; and (2) from its chattering 
voice, a babbler* So here, as the speaking of Paul gave occasion to this 
contemptuous designation.’ — da:wovior] divinities, quite generally. The 
plural is indefinite, and denotes the category, see on Matt. ii. 20. Accord- 
ing to de Wette, it is Jesus the Risen One and the living God that are meant 
in contrast to the Greek gods,—an element, however, which, according to 
the subjoined remark of Luke, appears as imported. The judgment of the 
philosophers, very similar to the charge previously brought against Socrates, * 
but not framed possibly in imitation of it, in opposition to Zeller, was 
founded on their belief that Jesws, whom Paul preached and even set forth 
as a raiser of the dead, must be assumed, doubtless, to be a foreign divinity, 
whose announcer—xarayye?evc, not elsewhere preserved—Paul desired to be. 
Hence Luke adds the explanatory statement : örı röv 'Inoovv k. Tr. avdor. eumyy. 
Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Alexander Morus, Selden,. Hammond, Spencer, 
Heinrichs, Baur,’ Lange, and Baumgarten, strangely imagine that the phi- 
losophers meant the 'Avacraoıc as a goddess announced by Paul.* But if Luke 
had aimed at this by his explanatory remark, he must have indicated it 
more precisely, especially as it is in itself improbable that the philosophers 
could, even in mere irony, derive from the words of the apostle a god- 
dess 'Avdoraoıc, for Paul doubtless announced who would raise the dead. 
Olearius referred +. avacr. not to the general resurrection of the dead, but 
to the resurrection of Jesus; so also Bengel. But Luke, in that case, in 
order not to be misunderstood, must have added airoi, which (see the criti- 
cal remarks) he has not done. 

Vv. 19, 20. ’Ex:AaBduevor] Grotius aptly says: ‘‘manu leniter prehen- 
sum.’’° Adroitly confiding politeness. Ver. 21 proves that a violent seiz- 
ure and carrying away to judicial examination is not indicated, as Adamıi ' 
and others imagined, but that the object in view was simply to satisfy the 
curiosity of the people flocking to the Areopagus. And this is evinced by 
the whole proceedings, which show no trace of a judicial process, ending 
as they did partly with ridicule and partly with polite dismissal, ver. 31, 





1Comp. Hermann, Culturgesch. d. Gr. u. 7 See his Paulus, I. p. 192, ed. 2: the ironi- 
2 See on ii. 12. [Röm. I. p. 237 f. cal popular wit had out of Jesus and the 
3 Aristoph. Av. 232, 579. avacracıs made a pair of divinities, 

4 Dem. 269.19; Athen. viii. p. 844 C. 8 Comp. also Ewald, p. 494 f. 

5 See also Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 297. 9 Comp. ix. 27, xxiii. 19. 


6 Xen. Mem.i. 1.1. 10 See in Wolf, 


330 CHAP. XVII., 21-23. 


after which Paul departed unhindered. Besides the Athenians were very 
indulgent to the introduction of foreign, particularly Oriental, worships,! 
provided only there was not conjoined with it rejection of the native gods, 
such as Socrates was formerly accused of. To this the assertion of 
Josephus, c. Ap. 2, is to be limited: vouw 0 qv tovtTo map’ avToi¢ kerwAuuevov 
Kal rıuopla Kata Tov eévov eicaybvrwv Oeöv &pioto Aavatoc,—which, perhaps, is 
merely a generalization from the history of Socrates. And certainly Paul, 
as the wisdom of his speech? attests, prudently withheld a direct condemna- 
tory judgment of the Athenian gods. Notwithstanding, Baur and Zeller 
have again insisted on a judicial process in the Areopagus—alleging that 
the legend of Dionysius the Areopagite, as the first bishop of Athens,* had 
given rise to the whole history ; that there was a wish to procure for Paul 
an opportunity, as solemn as possible, for the exposition of his teaching, 
an arena analogous to the Sanhedrim (Zeller), etc. — Concerning the ‘Apevo¢ 
mäyoc, collis Martius so called örı mparoc "Apyc évravda éxpidn,* the seat of the 
supreme judicature of Athens, situated to the west of the Acropolis, and 
concerning the institution and authority of that tribunal, see Meursius,®° — 
dvvaueda yvova «.r.A.] invitation in the form of a courteous question, by 
way of securing the contemplated enjoyment. —ric 7 kan k.r.A.] what, as 
respects its more precise contents, this new doctrine, namely, that which is 
being announced by you. In the repetition of the article® there is here im- 
plied a pert, ironical emphasis. — Zevifovra] startling. 
Févov brodéxyouat, GAAd Kal éxrAATTw." — elogéperc] namely, whilst you are here, 
hence the present. — ri dv Oédo tavta eivaı] see on ver. 18, ii. 12, and 
Tittmann, Synon. N. T. p. 129 f. The plural ravra indicates the individual 
points, after the collective character of which ri inquires.® 

Ver. 21. A remark of Luke added for the elucidation of vv. 19, 20. But 
Athenians, ’ A@yvaior, without the article: Athenian people, collectively,’ and 
the strangers resident there, had leisure for nothing else than, etc. eiKxarpeiv, 
vacare alicui rei, belongs to the later Greek.!° The imperfect does not ex- 
clude the continuance of the state of things in the present, but interweaves 
it with the history, so that it is transferred into the same time with the 
latter.’ According to Ewald, Luke actually means an earlier period, when 
it had still been so in Athens, ‘‘ before it was plundered by Nero.’ But 
then we should at least have expected an indication of this in the text by 
Tore or raAa, even apart from the fact that such a characteristic of a city is 
not so quickly lost. — xawérepov] The comparative delineates more strongly 


© ty y N 
Eeviiw ov uöVov TO 


1 Strabo, x. p. 474; Philostr. Vit. Apollon. 
vi. 7; Hermann, gotiesd. Alterth. § 12. 

2 Ver. 22 ff. 

3 Hus. iv. 23. 

4 Paus. i. 28. 5. 

5 De Areop. Lugd. Bat. 1624; Böckh, de 
Areop. Berol. 1826; Hermann, Sfaatsalterth. 
§ 105. 108. On the present locality, see Rob- 
inson, I. p. 11 f.; Forbiger, Geogr. II. p. 
937fE. 

6 Stallb. ad Plat. Rep. p. 407 B. 


7™Thom. Mag. Comp. Polyb. iii. 114. 4: 
Eevidovga mpocolbıs k. karamAnkrırn, Diod. Sic. 
xii. 53; 2 Macc. ix. 6; 3 Macc. vii. 3. 

§ Krüger, § Ixi. 8. 2; Stallbaum, ad Plat. 
Gorg. p. 508 C, Huthyphr. p. 15 A. 

9 mavres, see Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 12; 
Kühner, § 685, note 2. [Phryn. p. 125. 

10 Sturz, de Dial. Al. p. 169; Lobeck, ad 

11 See on John xi. 18, and Kühner, ad Xen. 
Anab. i. 4.9. Comp. also the pluperfect emeye- 
ypanro, ver. 23. 


PAUL’S ADDRESS ON MARS’ HILL. 331 
and vividly. The novelty-loving! and talkative? Athenians wished always 
to be saying or hearing something newer than the previous news.’ 

Ver. 22. Zrafeic Ev uéow] denotes intrepidity. —The wisdom with which 
Paul here could become a Gentile to the Gentiles, has been at all times 
justly praised. There is to be noted also, along with this, the elegance 
and adroitness, combined with all simplicity, in the expression and prog- 
ress of thought; the speech is, as respects its contents and form, full of 
sacred Attic art, a vividly original product of the free apostolic spirit. — 
kara ravra] in all respects. Comp. Col. iii. 20, 22. devordamovecrépovce | A com- 
parison with the other Greeks, in preference over whom Athens had the 
praise of religiousness.* AecoJaiuwv means divinity-fearing, but may, as the 
fear of God may be the source of either, denote as well real piety *® as super- 
stition.° Paul therefore, without violating the truth, prudently leaves the 
religious tendency of his hearers undetermined, and names only its source — 
the fear of God. Chrysostom well remarks: rpoodorotei tw Adyw" dıa TovTO 
eime' deisıdaruoveor£povg budc Gewpa.' Mistaking this fine choice of the expres- 
sion, the Vulgate, Erasmus, Luther, Castalio, Calovius, Suicer, Wolf, and 
others explained it: swperstitiosiores. oc: I perceive you as more God- 
fearing, so that you appear as such.* — vuäc bewpa] ‘‘ Magna perspicacia et 
parrhesia ; unus Paulus contra Athenas,’’ Bengel. 

Ver. 23. Avepyou.| belongs jointly to ra ceBaou. iu. — avabedp. ra ceB. by. | 
attentively contemplating ® the objects of your worship, temples, altars, images.!° 
—ayvéorw Oew)] That there actually stood at Athens at least one altar with 
the inscription: “to an unknown god,’’ would appear historically certain 
from this passage itself, even though other proofs were wanting, since Paul 
appeals to his own observation, and that, too, in the presence of the 
Athenians themselves. But there are corroborating external proofs: 
(1) Pausan. i. 1. 4. (comp. v. 14. 6) says: in Athens there were Bouol deav 
Vit. Apollon. vi. 2: 
Cwopovéctepov Tept TavTwY Ocov eb Aéyervy Kai Tavta 'Adyvnow, od Kai ayvooTwY 
Sedv Boot idpvvra. From both passages it is evident that at Athens there 
were several altars, each of which bore the votive inscription : ayvéorw eG." 
The explanation of the origin of such altars is less certain. Yet Diog. 
Laert. Epim. 3 gives a trace of it, when it is related that Epimenides put 
an end to a plague in Athens by causing black and white sheep, which he 
had let loose on the Areopagus, to be sacrificed on the spots where they 
lay down 76 rpoonkovrı See, i.e. to the god concerned, yet not known by 


Te ovouatouévwv ayvootov kad jpowv ; and (2) Philostr. 


7See on this word, Hermann, gottesd. 

6 See Bernhardy, p. 333. [Alterth. § 8. 6. 

9 Heb. xiii. 7; Diod. Sic. xii. 15; Plut. Aem. 
P.1; Lucian, Vit. auct.2; comp. avadespnaus, 
Cicero, ad Att. ix. 19, xiv. 15 f. 


1 Thue. iii, 38. 4. 

2 Wetstein and Valckenaer in loc. 

3 See Winer, p. 228 (E. T. 305). Comp. Plat. 
Phaed. p. 115 B; Dem. 43. 7; 160. 2. 

4See Valckenaer, Schol. p. 551: "A@nvatots 


mepıoaörtepov TL 7 Tois GAAoLs Es Ta Beta EoTL 
omovöns, Pausan. in Attic. 24. Comp. Soph. 
O. C. 260; Thue. ii. 40 f.; Eur. Her. 177, 330 ; 
Joseph. e. Ap. i. 12. 

5 Xen. Cyr. iii. 3. 58, Agesil. 11. 8. 

6 Theopr. Char. 16 ; Diod. Sic. i. 62 ; Lucian. 
Alex. 9; Plutarch, and others. 


102 Thess. ii. 4; Wisd. xiv. 20, xv. 7; Hist. 
Drag. 27; Dion. Hal. Ant. i. 30, v.13; Suicer, 
Thes. II. p. 942. 

11 Lucian, Philopatr. 9 and 29, is invalid as 
a proof, for there the reference of the pseudo- 
Lucian to the "Ayvwaros ev ’Adnvaıs is based 
on this very passage. 


332 CHAP. XVII., 24, 25. 


name, namely, who was the author of the plague; and that therefore one 
may find at Athens Bwpoic avevipove, i.e. altars without the designation of a 
god by name, not as Kuinoel, following Olearius, thinks, without any in- 
scription. From this particular instance the general view may be derived, 
that on important occasions, when the reference to a god known by name was 
wanting, as in public calamities of which no definite god could be assigned as the 
author, in order to honor or propitiate the god concerned (tov mpoonnovra) by 
sacrifice, without lighting on a wrong one, altars were erected which were des- 
tined and designated ayvoctw Yeo. Without any historical foundation, Eich- 
horn! supposed that such altars proceeded from the time when the art of 
writing was not yet known or in use; and that at a later period, when it 
was not known to what god these altars belonged, they were marked with 
that inscription in order not to offend any god. Against this may be urged 
the great probability that the destination of such altars would be preserved 
in men’s knowledge by oral tradition. Entirely peculiar is the remark of 
Jerome on Tit. 1. 12: ‘‘Inscriptio arae non ita erat, ut Paulus asseruit : 
ignoto Deo, sed ita: Diis Asiae et Europae et Africae, Diis ignotis et pere- 
grinis.” VYerum quia Paulus non pluribus Dis ignotis indigebat, sed uno 
tantum ignoto Deo, singulari verbo usus est,’’ etc. But there is no his- 
torical trace of such an altar-inscription ; and, had it been in existence, 
Paul could not have meant it, because we cannot suppose that, at the very 
commencement of his discourse, he would have made a statement before 
the Athenians deviating so much from the reality and only containing an 
abstract inference from it. The dyvéorw deg could not but have its literal 
accuracy and form the whole inscription ; otherwise Paul would only have 
promoted the suspicion of orepuoAoyia. We need not inquire to what definite 
god the Athenians pointed by their ayvöorwo bem. In truth, they meant no 
definite god, because, in the case which occasioned the altar, they knew 
none such. The view (see in Wolf) that the God of the Jews—the obscure 
knowledge of whom had come from the Jews to Egypt, and thence to the 
Greeks—is meant, is an empty dogmatic invention. Baur, p. 202, ed. 2, 
with whom Zeller agrees, maintains that the inscription in the singular is 
unhistorical ; that only the plural, ayvworo Yeoi, could have been written ; 
and that only a writer at a distance, who ‘‘ had to fear no contradiction on 
the spot,’’ could have ventured on such an intentional alteration. But the 
very hint given to us by Diogenes Laertius as to the origin of such altars is 
decisive against this notion, as well as the correct remark of Grotius: 
‘Cum Pausanias ait aras Athenis fuisse Sev dyvécrwr, hoc vult, multas 
fuisse aras tali inscriptione : Oc@ ayvocrw, quamquam potuere et aliae esse 


1 Bibl. TII. p. 413 f. (with whom Niemeyer, 
Interpret. orat. Paul. Act. xvii. 22 ff., Hal. 
1805, agreed). 

2 But, according to Oecumenius : beots Actas 
kat Evpwmns Kat AcBuns Oem ayvuorw Kai Eevo. 
Comp. Isidor. Pelus. in Cramer, Cat. p. 292. 
According to Ewald, this is the more exact 
statement of the inscription; from it Paul 
may have borrowed his quotation. But the 


exactness is Suspicious just on account of the 
singular in Oecumenius; and moreover, Paul 
would have gone much too freely to work by 
the omission of the essential term AcBvys 
(‘the unknown and strange god of Libya”); 
nor would he have had any reason for the 
omission of the &evo, while he might, on the 
contrary, have employed it in some ingenious 
sort of turn with reference to ver. 18. 


PAUL’S ADDRESS. 333 


pluraliter inscriptae, aliae singulariter.’’ Besides, it may be noted that 
Paul, had he read ayvöoroıc Veois on the altar might have used this plural 
expression for his purpose as suitably as the singular, since he, in fact, con- 
tinues with the generic neuter 6 . rovro. — On the Greek altars without 
temples, see Hermann, gottesd. Alterth. § 17.—6 oüv ayvoovvtec eicepeire, 
TovTo K.7.A.] (see the critical remarks) what ye therefore, according to this 
inscription, without knowing it, worship, that, this very object of your wor- 
ship, do I, éyé, with a self-conscious emphasis, make known unto you. Paul 
rightly inferred from the inscription that the Athenians, besides the gods, 
Zeus, Athene, etc., known to them, recognised something divine as existing 
and to be worshipped, which was different from these, however, after the 
manner of heathenism, they might conceive of it in various concrete forms. 
And justly also, as the God preached by him was another than those known 
heathen gods,! he might now say that this divinity, which served them in 
an unknown manner as the object of worship, was that which he announced 
to them, in order that it might now become to them yvworöc Sedc. Of 
course, they could not yet take up this expression in the sense of the apostle 
himself, but could only think of some divine being according to their usual 
heathen conception,” but, most suitably to the purpose he had in view, re- 
serving the more exact information for the further course of his address, 
he now engaged the religious interest of his hearers in his own public an- 
nouncement of it, and thereby eacited that interest the more, as by this 
ingeniously improvised connection he exhibited himself quite differently 
from what those might have expected who deemed him a karayysisuc Févwv 
daruoviov, ver. 18. Chrysostom aptly remarks in this respect: öpa müc 
deikvvor Mposılmporac avröv" ovdév Eévov, dynotv, ovdév KaLvdv Eeic~épw. — Observe, 
also, the conciliatory selection of evoeßeire, which expresses pious worship. 
evoeßeiv, with the accusative of the object,* is in classical writers, though 
rare, yet certainly vouched for, in opposition to Valckenaer, Porson, 
Seidler, Ellendt* (c?). 

Vv. 24-29. Paul now makes that unknown divinity known in conereto, 
and in such a manner that his description at the same time exposes the 
nullity of the polytheism deifying the powers of nature, with which he 
contrasts the divine affinity of man. Comp. Rom. i. 18 ff. 

Vv. 24, 25. Comp. vii. 48; Ps. 1. 10 ff.; also the similar expressions 
from profane writers.° — epareiera] is served, by offerings, etc., namely, as 
regards the actual objective state of the case. — rpoodeöu. rıvöc] as one, who 
needed anything in addition,° i.e. to what He Himself is and has. Erasmus, 
Paraphr.: “cum... nullius boni desideret accessionem.’’ " — abröc didodg 


likewise Philo, leg. alleg. II. p. 1087. 
6 Luther takes rıvos as masculine, which 


1 Rom. i. 22, 23; 1 Cor. viii. 4 ff. , x. 20. 
2 Comp. Laufs in the Stud. und Krit. 1850, 


p. 584 f. 

31 Tim. v. 4; 4 Macc. v. 23, xi. 5. 

4See Hermann, ad Soph. Ant. 727. Com- 
pare also the Greek acefety rı Or Tuva. 

5In Grotius and Wetstein, Kypke, II. 89, 
and the passages cited from Porphyr. by 
Ullmann in the Stud.u Krit. 1872, p. 388; 


likewise excellently corresponds with what 
precedes, as with the following racı. But 
the neuter rendering is yet to be preferred, as 
affecting everything except God (in the « 
there is also every ris.) Comp. Clem. ad Cor. 
T. 52. 

7 Comp. 2 Macc. xiv. 35, and Grimm in loc., 


334 CHAP, XVIL., 26-28. \ 


«.r.A.] a confirmatory definition to oidé . . . rwöc: seeing that He Himself 
gives, etc. — aor] to all men, which is evident from the relation of abrd¢ 
. . . wavra to the preceding ovdé . . . rwöc. — Conv x. nvorv] the former 
denotes life in itself, the latter the continuance of life, which is conditioned 
by breathing. "Eurvovc Er’ eiui x. mvoac Oepuac nvew.! The dying man gpiooeı 
mvoac? éxrvei. * Erasmus correctly remarks the jucundus concentus of the two 
words.* Others assume a hendiadys, which, as regards analysis—life, and 
indeed breath—and form, namely, that the second substantive is subordinate, 
and must be converted into the adjective, Calvin has correctly appre- 
hended : vitam animalem. But how tame and enfeebling ! — kai ra ravra| 
and, generally, all things, namely, which they use. — Chrysostom has already 
remarked how far this very first point of the discourse, vv. 24, 25, tran- 
scends not only heathenism in general, but also the philosophies of heathen- 
ism, which could not rise to the idea of an absolute Creator, Observe the 
threefold contents of the speech: Theology, ver. 24 f.; Anthropology, vv. 
26-29 ; Christology, ver. 30 f. 

Vv. 26, 27. ‘‘The single origin of men and their adjusted diffusion upon 
the earth was also His work, in order that they should seek and find Him 
who is near to all.’? —éroigoe. . . karoıkeiv]) He has made that from—pro- 
ceeding from—one blood, every nation of men should dwell upon all the face of 
the earth, comp. Gen. xi. 8. Castalio, Calvin, Beza, and others: ‘‘ fecitque 
ex uno sanguine omne genus hominum, ut inhabitaret’’ (after avOp. a 
comma). Against this is the circumstance that öpicac «.r.2. contains the 
modal definition, not to the making, to the producing, of the nations, but 
to the making-them-to-dwell, as is evident from 77¢ karoıkiac abrov ; so that 
this interpretation is not according to the context. — é& évic aiuaroc] See, 
respecting aia as the seat of life propagating itself by generation, on 
John i. 13. Paul, by this remark, that all men through one heavenly 
Father have also one earthly father, does not specially oppose, as Stolz, 
Kuinoel, and others, following older interpreters, assume, the belief of the 
Athenians that they were auröxfovec] ;* the whole discourse is elevated 
above so special a polemic bearing. But he speaks in the way of general 
and necessary contrast to the polytheistic nature-religions, which derived 
the different nations from different origins in their myths. Quite irrele- 
vant is what Olshausen suggests as the design of Paul, that he wished to 
represent the contempt in which the Jews were held among the Greeks as 
absurd. — mi av 70 zpdécwr. r. ync] refers to the idea of the totality of the 
nations dwelling on the earth, which is contained in rév éAvoc, every nation. 
— öpisac] Aorist participle contemporaneous with &roinse, specifying how 
God proceeded in that éoince x.7.2.: inasmuch as He has fixed the appointed 
periods and the definite boundaries of their, the nation’s, dwelling. Tnc karoık. 
ait. belongs to both—to rpoorer. kaıp., and to rac öpod. God has deter- 


p.199. See on this meaning of the verb es- 2 Pind. Nem. x. 140. 
pecially, Dem. xiv. 22; Plat. Phil. p. 20 E; 3 Comp. Lobeck, Paral. p. 58; Winer, p. 
and on the distinction of mpooöeiodai rıvos and 591 (E. T. 793). 
rı, Stallb. ad Plat. Rep. p. 342 A. 4 See Wetstein in loc. 
1 Eur. Here, f. 1092. 


PAUL’S ADDRESS, 335 


mined the dwelling! of the nations, according both to its duration in time 
and to its extension in space. Both, subject to change, run their course in 
a development divinely ordered.? Others take xpoorer. carp. independently 
of r. karoık. aur., so Baumgarten ; but thereby the former expression pre- 
sents itself in perplexing indefiniteness. The sense of the epochs of the 
world set forth by Daniel? must have been more precisely indicated than 
by the simple «arpoic. Lachmann has separated mpoorerayu. into mpöc 
TeTayuévoug unnecessarily, contrary to all versions and Fathers, also con- 
trary to the reading rporerayıu. in D* Iren. interpr. — 7 épofecia is not else- 
where preserved, but rd dpofécvov ; see Bornemann. 

Ver. 27. The divine purpose in this guidance of the nations is attached 
by means of the telic infinitive :* in order that they should seek the Lord, i.e. 
direct their endeavours to the knowledge of God, if perhaps they might feel 
Him, who is so palpably near, and jind Him. Olshausen thinks that in 
Zyreivis implied the previous apostasy of mankind from God. But the 
seeking does not necessarily suppose a having lost ; and since the text does 
not touch on an earlier fellowship of man with God, although that is in 
itself correct, the hearers, at least, could not infer that conclusion from 
the simple ¢yreiv. The great thought of the passage is simply : God the 
Author, the Governor, and the End of the world’s history: from God, 
through God, to God. — wyiap . . . evporev| Paul keeps consistently to his 
figure. The seeker who comes on his object touches and grasps it, and has 
now in reality found it. Hence the meaning without figure is: if per- 
chance they might become conscious of God and of their relation to Him, and 
might appropriate this consciousness as a spiritual possession. Thus they 
would have understood the guidance of the nations as a revelation of God, 
and have complied with its holy design in their own case.” The problem- 
atie expression, ei üpaye, if they at least accordingly,® is in accordance both 
with the nature of the case—Bengel: ‘via patet ; Deus inveniri potest, 
sed hominem non cogit ’’—and with the historical want of success ;" for 
the heathen world was blinded, to which also wap. points—a word which, 
since the time of Homer, is very frequently used of groping in the dark or 
in blindness. * — kairoıye «.7.2.] although certainly He°® does not at all require 
to be first, sought and found, as He is not far !° from every one of us. Comp. 
Jer. xxiii. 23. This addition makes palpably evident the greatness of the 
blindness, which nevertheless took place. 

Ver. 28. Reason assigned (yap) for ob warp. ard &vöc «.r.A., for in Him we 
live, we move, and we exist. Paul views God under the point of view of His 
immanence as the element in which we live, ete.; and man in such intimate 
connection with God, that he is constantly surrounded by the Godhead and 
embraced in its essential influence, but, apart from the Godhead, could 


I karoıkia, Polyb. v. 78. 5; Strabo, v. p. 7See Rom. i. 18 ff., and comp. Baumg. p. 
2 Comp. Job xii. 23. (246. 550 ff. 

3 Baumgarten. 8 Od.-ix. 416; Job v.14; comp. here es. 
4 Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 224 (E. T. 261). pecially, Plato, Phaed. p. 99 B. 

5 Comp. Luthardt, vom. freien Willen, p. 415. 9 xiv.17; John iv. 2. 


6 See Klotz, ad Devar. pp. 178, 192. 10 For see ver. 28, 


336 CHAP, XVII., 29-31. 


neither live, nor move, nor exist.! This explanation is required by the re- 
lation of the words to the preceding, according to which they are designed 
to prove the nearness of God; therefore &v abro must necessarily contain 
the local reference—the idea of the divine repıyöpnoıc, which Chrysostom il- 
lustrates by the example of the air surrounding us on all sides. Therefore 
the rendering per eum,” or, as de Wette more correctly expresses it, ‘* rest- 
ing on Him as the foundation,’?* which would yield no connection in the 
way of proof with the ov warpav eivar of the Godhead, is to be abandoned. 
In opposition to the pantheistic view, see already Calvin. It is sufficient 
to urge against it—although it was also asserted by Spinoza and others— 
on the one hand, that the transcendence of God is already decidedly at- 
tested in vv. 24-26, and on the other, that the év auro Louev «.7.A. Is said 
solely of men, and that indeed in so far as they stand in essential connec- 
tion with God by divine descent, see the following, in which case the doc- 
trine of the reality of evil * excludes a spiritual pantheism. — Gouev «. kıvovueha 
x. éouév| a climax: out of God we should have no life, not even movement, 
which yet inanimate creatures, plants, waters, etc., have, nay, not even any 
existence, we should not have been at all. Heinrich and others take a su- 
perficial view when they consider all three to be synonymous. Storr,° on 
the other hand, arbitrarily puts too much into Ceyev ; vivimus beate ac hilare ; 
and Olshausen, after Kuinoel, too much into écyév: the true being, the life of 
the spirit. It is here solely physical life and being that is meant ; the moral 
life-fellowship with God, which is that of the regenerate, is remote from 
the context. — twee tov Kal’ vuag moımr.] Namely, Aratus, of Soli in Cilicia, 
in the third century B.c.,° and Cleanthes of Assos in Mysia, a disciple of 
Zeno.” For other analogous passages, see Wetstein.—The acquaintance of 
the apostle with the Greek poets is to be considered as only of a dilettante 
sort ;* his school-training was entirely Jewish, but he was here obliged to 
abstain from O. T. quotations. — rov xa? bude momr.] Of the poets pertain- 
ing to you, 2.e. your poets.° —rov yap kai yévoc éouév] The first half of a hex- 
ameter, verbatim from Aratus /.c. ; therefore yap kai is not to be considered 
in logical connection with the speech of the apostle, but as, independently 
of the latter, a component part of the poetical passage, which he could not 


have omitted without destroying the verse. 
sumus: this Paul adduces as a parallel (oc kai rıvec . . 


1Comp. Dio Chrys. vol. I. p. 384, ed. 
Reiske : äre ov paxpav ovö €&m Tod Oelov 
Sumkiomevor, aAN Ev aVTw HETW TEpUKOTES K.T.A. 

2 Beza, Grotius, Heinrichs, Kuinoel. 

3 Comp. already Chrysostom: ov« eime: du 
aurod, add’ 0 Eyyvrepov Hy, ev AUTO. 

4 Comp. Olshausen. 

5 Opuse. III. p. 95. 

6 Phaenom. 5. 

7 Hymn. in Jov. 5. 

8 That Paul after his conversion, on account 
of his destination to the Gentiles, may have 
earnestly occupied himself in Tarsus with 
Greek literature (Baumgarten), to which also 


Nam hujus progenies quoque 
. eippkacı) confirm- 


the BıßXAia, 2 Tim. iv. 13, are supposed to 
point, is a very precarious assumption, es- 
pecially as it is Aratus, a fellow-countryman 
of the apostle, who is quoted, and other 
quotations (except Tit. i. 12) are not demon: 
strable (comp. on 1 Cor. xv. 33). The poet- 
ical expression itself in our passage is such 
a common idea (see Wetstein), that an ac- 
quaintance with it from several Greeks poets 
(rıwes) by no means presupposes a more 
special study of Greek literature. See In- 
troduction to the Epistle to the Romans, § 1. 
9 See Bernhardy, p. 241. 


PAUL’S ADDRESS. 331 


ing to his hearers his own assertion, &v ait@ Zöuev . . . éouév. As the off- 
spring of God, we men stand in such homogeneity to God, and thus in such 
necessary and essential connection with God, that we cannot have life, etc., 
without Him, but only in Him. So absolutely dependent is our life, etc., 
on Him. — ov] Here, according to poetical usage since the time of Homer, 
in the sense of rovrov.! Paul has idealized the reference of the rov to Zeus 
in Aratus.—In the passage of Cleanthes, which was also in the apostle’s 
mind, it is said : é« cov yap yévoc éouév, Where yévoc is the accusative of more 
precise definition, and means, not kindred, as with Aratus, but origin. 

Ver. 29. Since, then, we, according to this poetical saying, are offspring 
of God, so must our self-consciousness, kindred to God, tell us that the Godhead 
has not resemblance to gold, etc. We cannot suppose a resemblance of the 
Godhead to such materials, graven by human art, without denying our- 
selves as the progenies of God.” Therefore we ought not (ou ddeidouer). 
What a delicate and penetrating attack on heathen worship! That Paul 
with the reproach, which in oüx dgeiAouev «.r.A. is expressed with wise mild- 
ness,* does no injustice to heathenism, whose thinkers had certainly in great 
measure risen above anthropomorphism, but hits the prevailing popular 
opinion,* may be seen in Baumgarten, p. 566 ff. — y&vog] placed first and 
separated from r. Ozov, as the chief point of the argument. For, if we are 
proles Dei, and accordingly homogeneous with God, it is a preposterous error 
at variance with our duty to think, with respect to things which are en- 
tirely heterogeneous to us, as gold, silver, and stone, that the Godhead has 
resemblance with them. — xapaynarı réyv. k. Evßyu. avOpdrov] a graven image 
which is produced by art and deliberation of a man, for the artist made it 
according to the measure of his artistic meditation and reflection : an appo- 
sition to ypvow «.r.A., not in the ablative (Bengel). — ro #eiov] the divine 
nature, divinum numen.° The general expression fitly corresponds to the 
discourse on heathenism, as the real object of the latter. - Observe also the 
striking juxtaposition of avfparov and ro Beiov ; for xapayu. téyv. k. Ev. avdp. 
serves to make the ov« dgeiAouev vouite still more palpably felt ; inasmuch 
as metal and stone serve only for the materials of human art and artistic 
thoughts, but far above human artistic subjectivity, which wishes to repre- 
sent the divine nature in these materials, must the Godhead be exalted, 
which is not similar to the human image, but widely different from it.° 

Vv. 30, 31. It is evident from ver. 29 that heathenism is based on igno- 
rance. Therefore Paul, proceeding to the Christological portion of his 
discourse, now continues with pév oiv: the times, therefore, of ignorance, for 
such they are, according to ver. 29, God -having overlooked, makes known at 
present to all men everywhere to repent. — ixepiddv] without noting them with 
a view to punishment or other interference.” The idea of contempt,* although 


1 See Kühner, § 480, 5; Ellendt, Zea. Soph. 4 mpos Tovs moAAovs 6 Adyos Av aurw, Chry- 
II. p. 198. sostom. [C, al. 
2 Graf views it otherwise, but against the 5 Herod. iii. 108, i. 82; Plat. Phaedr. p. 242 
clear words of the passage, in the Stud. u. 6 Comp. Wisd. xv. 15 ff. 
Krit. 1859. p. 232. 7” Comp. Dion. Hal. v. 32. Opposite of 


3 Bengel: “ clemens locutio, praesertim in éfopav. See also on Rom. iii. 25; Acts xiv. 16. 
prima persona plurali.”’ 8 Vulg.: despiciens. 


338 CHAP. XVII., 32-34. 


otherwise linguistically suitable, which Castalio, de Dieu, Gataker, Calo- 

vius, Seb. Schmid, and others find in the expression, partly even with the 

observation : ‘‘indignatione et odio temporum . . . correptus,’’! is at vari- 

ance with the cautiousness and moderation of the whole speech. — rac 

mavrayou| a popular hyperbolical expression ; yet not incorrect, as the uni- 

versal announcement was certainly in course of development.” — kadsrı (see 

the critical remarks) : in accordance with the fact that. He has appointed a day. 

It denotes the important consideration, by which God was induced raviv 

mapayyéAhew «.7.A. Comp. il. 24.— £v dixaioc.] in righteousness, so that this 

is the determining moral element, in which the «pivecy is to take place, 7.e. 

Sixaiwc, 1 Pet. ii. 23. Paul means the Messianic judgment, and that as not 

remotely impending. — év avdpi] i.e. in the person of a man, who will be 

God's representative. — J Gpice x.7.2.] a well-known attraction : whom He 
ordained, namely, for holding the judgment, having afforded faith, in Him 

as a judge, to all, by the fact that He raised Him from the dead. The riorıv 

rapéyew * is the operation of God on men, by which He affords to them 
faith, — an operation which He brought to bear on them historically, by 

His having conspicuously placed before them in the resurrection of Jesus 
His credentials as the appointed judge. The resurrection of Jesus is indeed 
the divine onueiov,* and consequently the foundation of knowledge and con- 
viction, divinely given as a sure handle of faith to all men, as regards what 
the Lord, in His nature and destination was and is; and therefore the 
thought is not to be regarded as ‘‘ not sufficiently ideal’’ for Paul.” The 
opigerv 1s not, as in x. 42, the appointment which took place in the counsel 
of God, but that which was accomplished in time and fact as regards the 
faith of men, as in Rom. i. 4. Moreover, the riorıv rapéyerv, which on the 
part of God took place by the resurrection of Jesus, does not exclude the 
human self-determination to accept and appropriate this divine rap£xem.® 
Iliorıv mapéyecv may be rendered, with Beza and others,’ according to like- 
wise correct Greek usage: to yive assurance by His resurrection, but this 

commends itself the less, because in that case the important element of 
faith remains without express mention, although it corresponds very suit- 
ably to the rapayy£iAsı petavoeiv, ver. 30. The conception and mode of 
expression, to afford faith, is similar to petavorav dıdövar, V. 31, x1. 18, yet 
the latter is already more than rap£yew, potestatem facere, ansam praebere 
credendi. 

Ver. 32. As yet Paul has not once named Jesus, but has only endeavoured 
to gather up the most earnest interest of his hearers for this the great final 
aim of his discourse ; now his speech is broken off by the mockery of some, 
and by a courteous relegation to silence on the part of others. — avaoraciv 
vexpav| @ resurrection of dead persons, as Paul had just asserted such a case. 
The plural denotes the category. To take it of the general rising of the 





1 Wolf. 5 De Wette. Comp. on ii. 36, iv. 27, x. 38, 
2 Comp. Col. i. 23. On the juxtaposition of xii. 33. 

maou mavr., see Lobeck, Paralip. p. 56 f. 6 Comp. on Rom. ii. 4. 
3 See Wetstein and Kypke in loc. 7 Sce especiaily Raphel, Polyb. in loc. 


4 Comp. John ii. 18 f. 8 Comp. on Rom i. 4. 


PAUL’S ADDRESS. 339 


dead at the day of judgment, is quite at variance with the context. That, 
moreover, the oi wey were all Hpieureans, and the oi dé Stoics, as Grotius, 
Wolf, and Rosenmiiller supposed, cannot be proved. Calvin, Grotius, 
Wolf, Rosenmiiller, Alford, and others hold axovoöueda cov war. mepi rourov 
as meant in earnest. But would not Paul, if he had so understood it, have 
remained longer in Athens? See xviii. 1. — The repellent result, which 
the mention of the resurrection of Jesus brought about, is by Baur sup- 
posed to be only a product of the author, who had wished to exhibit very 
distinctly the repulsive nature of the doctrine of the resurrection for edu- 
cated Gentiles ; he thinks that the whole speech is only an effect fictitiously 
introduced by the author, and that the whole narrative of the appearance 
at Athens is to be called in question —‘‘ a counterpart to the appearance of 
Stephen at Jerusalem, contrived with a view to a harmless issue instead of 
a tragical termination,’’ Zeller. But with all the delicacy and prudence, 
which Paul here, ın this “EAAdado¢g ‘EAAdc,* had to exercise and knew how to 
do so, he could not and durst not be silent on the resurrection of Jesus, that 
foundation of apostolic preaching ; he could not but, after he had done all 
he could to win the Athenians, now bring the matter to the issue, what effect 
the testimony to the Risen One would have. If the speech had not this 
testimony, criticism would the more easily and with more plausibility be 
able to infer a fictitious product of the narrator ; and it would hardly have 
neglected to do so. ; 

Vv. 33, 34. Oitwc] i.e. with such a result. — korrnhévrec ait@e] having more 
closely attached themselves to him. Comp. v. 18, ix. 26. —6’Apeoray.]| the 
assessor of the court of Areopagus. This is to be considered as the well-known 
distinctive designation, hence the article, of this Dionysius in the apostolic 
church. Nothing further is known with certainty of him. The account of 
Dionysius of Corinth in Eus. JZ. E. iii. 4, iv. 23,’ that he became bishop of 
Athens, where he is said to have suffered martydcm,* is unsupported. The 
writings called after him,° belonging to the later Neoplatonism, have been 
shown to be spurious. According to Baur, it was only from the ecclesias- 
tical tradition that the Areopagite came into the Book of Acts, and so 
brought with him the fiction of the whole scene on the Areopagus. — 
Aduapıc| wholly unknown, erroneously held by Chrysostom to be the wife 
of Dionysius, which is just what Luke does not express by the mere yvvy. 
Grotius conjectures Aauadıc (juvenca), which name was usual among the 
Greeks. But even with the well-known interchange of 2 and p,° we must 
assent to the judgment of Calovius: ‘‘ Quis nescit nomina varia esse, ac 
plurima inter se vicina non tamen eadem.’’ As a man’s name we find 
Aauapiwy in Boeckh, Inser, 2393, and Aauapyc, 1241, also Aaudperos in Pausan. 
v.5. 1; and as a woman’s name, Aayapéry, in Diod. xi. 26. 


1 Comp. Zeller. [102. 4 Niceph. iii. 11. 
2 Thucyd. epigr., see Jacobs, Anthol. I. p. 5 wept THS OUpavias iepapxias K.T.A, 
3 Comp. Constiti. ap, vil. 46. 2. 6 Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 179. 


340 \ CHAP, XVIL—NOTES, 


NOTES BY AMERICAN EDITOR. 


(x?) Thessalonica. V.1. 


Having been ‘‘shamefully entreated’’ and then honorably dismissed from 
Philippi, Paul and two of his companions, leaving Luke at Philippi, passing 
through other cities, came to Thessalonica, This celebrated city, distant about 
one hundred miles south-west from Philippi, was beautifully situated on the 
slope of a hill, at the northern end of the Thermaic Gulf. It was a great com- 
mercial city, the capital of the province and residence of the proconsul. After 
the battle of Philippi, on account of its attachment to the cause of Anthony, it 
was made a free city. Strabo mentions it as the largest city in Macedonia. It 
has always been a city of importance ; at present it is considered the second 
city of European Turkey, and has a population of 70,000. Here the mission- 
aries rested, as there was a synagogue of the Jews, probably the only one in 
that district. After finding the means of earning his daily bread by manual 
toil, and a home in the house of Jason, the apostle, as was his custom, went to 
the synagogue, and for three consecutive Sabbaths preached to the Jews that 
Jesus was the promised Messiah. Some of them believed, and formed the nu- 
cleus of what becamea large and useful church. But the Jews as a class, from 
first to last, were the plague of his suffering life, and a great hindrance to his 
ministry. “ At Antioch and Jerusalem, Jews, nominally within the fold of 
Christ, opposed his teaching and embittered his days ; in all other cities it was 
the Jews who contradicted and blasphemed the holy name which he was 
preaching. In the planting of his churches he had to fear their deadly opposi- 
tion ; in the watering of their yet more deadly fraternity. The Jews who hated 
Christ sought his life ; the Jews who professed to love him undermined his 
efforts. The one faction endangered his existence, the other ruined his peace. 
Never, till death released him, was he wholly free from their violent conspira- 
cies or their insidious calumnies, Without, they sprang upon him like a pack 
of wolves ; within, they hid themselves in sheep’s clothing to worry and tear 
his flocks.’’ (Furrar.) Here in Thessalonica he was assaulted by a mob, in- 
stigated and led on by the Jews ; and he and his friends deemed it prudent 
that he should privately and hastily depart, lest the liberty and the lives of the 
brethren who had given surety for him might be imperilled. 


(z?) Honorable women. \V. 12. 


The term employed indicates that the women were of high rank and social 
position—among the chief people of the city. Arnot, on this passage, writes : 
«¢ And is there ground for gladness there? Are the upper ten thousand more 
precious in God’s sight than the myriads who occupy a lower place? No; this 
word comes from heaven, and does not shape itself by the fashion of the 
world. But though poor and rich are equally precious, there are times and cir- 
cumstances in which conversion in high places is more noted and noteworthy 
than conversion in a low place. The common people heard the Master gladly ; 
but the rulers held aloof, and boasted that they were not tinged with any trust 


NOTES. 341 


in Jesus of Nazareth. On this very account there was great joy in their circle 
when a magnate joined their band. Even the Lord longed to have some of 
them, and looked fondly on the young rich man who came running and kneel- 
ing and calling him Master.’’ At Antioch in Pisidia the Jews enlisted the ser- 
vices of women of similar rank and position, and characterized by superstitious 
devoutness and ignorant zeal, to counteract the influence and usefulness of the 
apostles. ‘‘ This is an agency that has from the beginning been sought and 
used both for good and evil. Women were employed by our Lord himself for 
certain appropriate ministries in the establishment of his kingdom. But false 
teachers have in all times availed themselves of the combined weakness and 
strength of the female nature for their own ends. The Romish hierarchy have 
always made much of female agency, and especially the agency of women in 
high social rank. But as Christ himself employed their tenderness and pa- 
tience and perseverance in his own cause, he has encouraged his disciples in 
all ages to go and do likewise. Let woman stand on her true foundation—the 
family ; and forth from that citadel let her go to her daily task, wherever the 
Lord hath need of her daily service ; but back to the family let her ever return, 
as to her refuge and rest. Colonies of women, cut off from family relations and 
affections and duties, and bound by vows, are mischievous to themselves, and, 
notwithstanding superficial apparent advantages, in the long run, dangerous to 
the community. God made the family ; man made the convent. God's work! 
behold it is very good ; man’s is in this case a snare.” (Arnot.) Lately, in the 
Christian church in this land, the place and power of woman, both at home 
and abroad, has been more generally acknowledged and felt—among the young 
and the poor and afflicted amidst ourselves ; and in the schools and zenanas of 
foreign lands, her work is greatly blessed. And as a large proportion of the 
membership of the Protestant churches in this country are women, their work 
and their worth in every field of religious and charitable enterprise cannot be 
overestimated. 


(4°) Timothy. VY. 15. 


This is the first time Timothy is mentioned in the narrative since Paul left 
Philippi. ‘The probability is, however, that he was with the apostle at Thessa- 
loniea, as he appears to have been intimately connected with that church. 
(1 Thess. i. 1, iii. 2, and 2 Thess. i. 1.) 

Comparing xviii. 5 and 1 Thess. iii. 1, 2 our author and others suppose that 
there is a mistake in Luke’s narrative which cannot be explained or removed. 
On this Gloag writes : “ But certainly the mere omission by Luke of Timothy’s 
visit to Athens and return to Thessalonica is no discrepancy, as the cireum- 
stance had no bearing on his narrative. If Timothy had remained with the 
apostle, and thus had not rejoined him at Corinth, the case would have been 
different. But after all, the fact that Timothy came to Athens at all is a mere 
supposition ; it is not asserted in 1 Thess. iii. 1. The probability is that he 
was sent by Paul to Thessaloniea from Berea, and not from Athens; and that 
after his return he and Silas went directly from Berea to Corinth.”’ Those who 
had accompanied Paul to Athens when they returned brought back a request 
from him that Silas, who had remained at Berea, and Timothy, who had in the 
meantime gone back to Thessalonica, either from Berea or from Athens, should 


342 CHAPS XVII — NOTES: 


go to him with all speed. ‘But Silas and Timothy do not seem to have re- 
joined Paul until he reached Corinth. We have no direct information what 
became of Luke in the meantime.” (Abbott.) Plumtree says: “As far as we 
can gather from 1 Thess. i. 1-3, Timothy came by himself to Athens, probably 
after the scene at the Areopagus, and was sent back at once with words of coun- 
sel and comfort to those whom he reported as suffering much tribulation.’’ 

Alford gives this explanation: ‘‘When Paul departed from Berea, he 
sent Timothy to exhort and confirm the Thessalonians and determined to be left 
at Athens alone, Silas meanwhile remaining to carry on the work at Berea. 
Then Paul, on his arrival at Athens, sends a message to both to come to him 
as soon as possible. They did so, and find him at Corinth.” 


(B*) The market-place. V. 17. 


The Agora, or market-place, in any Greek city, was the centre of its life. The 
market-place of Athens was at once its Exchange, its Lyceum, and its lounge. 
Men of all ranks and classes, of all callings and professions, met and jostled 
each other in the eager, bustling throng which daily crowded it. In this same 
market-place, more than four centuries before, Socrates had conducted his 
wonderful conversational discussions. Hither Paul, after having addressed the 
Jews in their synagogue, went, with stirred heart, to address the idolatrous 
multitudes. Among the throng of curious listeners mingled many philosophers 
of every shade of opinion. Special mention is made of the Epicureans and 
Stoics. Epicurus, the founder of the one school, lived a long and tranquil 
life at Athens, and died at the age of 72. The leading tenet of his philosophy 
was that the highest good is pleasure. But as experience taught that what are 
called pleasures are often more than counterbalanced by the pains which they 
incur, he taught that all excess in sensuous delights should be avoided, His 
own life seems to have been characterized by generosity, general kindliness, and 
self-control ; many of his followers, however, adopted a life of ease and self- 
indulgence ; sometimes restrained by the calculations of prudence, and some- 
times sinking into mere voluptuousness. 


“ Quid sit futurum cras fuge querere, et 
Quem fors dierum cunque dabit, lucro appone.'’ 


“Strive not the morrow’s chance to know, 
But count whate’er the Fates bestow 
As given thee for gain.” (Horace.) 


The other school took its name, not from its founder, Zeno, but from the 
Stoa prekile, the painted porch, where Zeno was accustomed to teach. This 
school held as their chief tenet, that the highest source of pleasure is to be 
found in virtue. They taught that true wisdom consisted in controlling eir- 
cumstances and not being affected by them; that men should be alike indif- 
ferent to pleasure and pain. They aimed at obtaininga complete mastery, not 
only over their passions, but even over their circumstances. There was much 
that was good in each system, and the highest and noblest of the schools ex- 
hibited a moral and manly life. But each, in most cases, tended to degrade 
and degenerate the race. ‘In their worst degeneracies Stoicism became the 
apotheosis of suicide, and Epicureanism the glorification of lust.’’ (Furrar.) 


NOTES. 343 


The one school was designated the school of the garden ; the other the school 
of the porch. The one was atheistic, the other pantheistic. Neither believed 
in a divine personal Providence. To them, the message of this new teacher, 
enforced by his fiery eloquence and informal logic, concerning Jesus and the 
resurrection, seemed but as idle tales and garrulous chatterings. Butas it was 
something new, they all wished, from curiosity, to hear something farther from 
him ; at least it might amuse them, if nothing more. So theyled him to Mars’ 
Hill, where he might more fully unfold his strange doctrines. 


(©?) An unknown God. VY. 23. 


Paul standing in the midst of a vast, curious, sneering, or indifferent throng, 
announced as his text an inscription he had seen on one of their numerous 
altars. As to the pulpit he occupied and its surroundings, Bishop Wordsworth 
observes: ‘‘ He stood on that hill in the centre of Athens, with its statues and 
altars and temples around him. The temple of the Eumenides was immediately 
below him , behind was the temple of Theseus ; and he beheld the Parthenon 
of the Acropolis fronting him from above. The temple of Victory was on his 
right and a countless multitude of temples and altars in the Agora and Cerami- 
eus below him. Above him, towering over the city from its pedestal on the 
rock of the Acropolis, was the bronze colossus of Minerva, the champion of 
Athens.’’ With deep earnestness, undaunted composure, and sublime faith in 
the message he had to utter, and in the Master he served, the apostle addressed 
the mixed and multitudinous assemblage. Anda most remarkable address he 
gave. His manner was courteous and winning ; his style natural and adapted 
to his audience ; his arguments clear and conclusive ; his illustrations ample 
and appropriate ; his application personal and pointed, solemn and impres- 
sive. 

“In expressions markedly courteous, and with arguments exquisitely con- 
ciliatory, recognizing their piety toward their gods, and enforcing his views by 
an appeal to their own poets, he yet manages, with the readiest power of adapta- 
tion, to indicate the errors of each class of his listeners. While seeming to 
dwell only on points of agreement, he yet practically rebukes, in every direction, 
their national and intellectual self-complacency.”’ (Farrar.) From the nature 
and dignity of man, he infers and declares the spirituality and unity of God, 
and the obligations under which all men are laid to worship him alone, as the 
Creator of all things, and in whom ‘‘ we Jive and move and have our being.”’ 
Then he urges all to repentance for the past, in view of a coming general judg- 
ment, which will be held by Jesus Christ, whereof indisputable assurance has 
been given by God, in raising his Son from the dead. The apostle was here 
interrupted by a burst of derision, and the apostle went sorrowfully away, 
mourning over their intellectual pride and spiritual incapacity. Some, how- 
ever, believed, among whom was a member of the court, who must have occupied 
a high position, and a woman, also probably of some distinction. Tradition 
tells us that this Dionysius became Bishop of Athens, and died a martyr. The 
success of the apostle was less in Athens than in any other city he visited, and 
he makes no allusion to the city or the church in it, in any of his epistles. He 
left Athens a despised and lonely man, yet his visit was not in vain—in its 
effects on his own mind, and in the results that followed from the planting of 


344 CHAP: XVII.—NOTES; 


the grain of mustard-seed. He founded no church there, but one grew up in 
that city, which furnished its martyr bishop, and able apologists to the 
church, in the next century. ‘‘Of all who visit Athens, many connect it with 
the name of Paul who never so much as remember that, since the days of its 
glory, it has been trodden by the feet of poets and conquerors and kings. 
They think not of Cicero, or Virgil, or Germanicus, but of the wandering tent- 
maker.” (Furrar.) 

. The report of this able, eloquent, powerful speech, and the results which 
followed, was probably written by Paul’s own hand. 


CRITICAL REMARKS. 345 


CHAPTER XVIII. 


Ver. 1. 6 HaöAos is wanting in important witnesses, Rightly deleted by Lachm. 
and Tisch. With ywpio6eis a church-lesson begins. — Ver. 2. é«] AB DEG, 
min. Vulg. have and. So Lachm. Tisch. Born., and rightly, on account of the 
decisive attestation.—On preponderating evidence, 77 r&xvn is, in ver 3, to be 
adopted, with Lachm. and Tisch., instead of ryv réyvnv. — Ver. 5. TO Adyw] Elz. 
has tw mvevuari, in opposition to A B D E G 8, min. several vss. and Fathers. 
Defended by Rinck on the ground that ro A6yw is a scholion on diauapr. But 
it was not dıauapr., but ovveiyero, that needed a scholion, namely, 76 mveüuarı, 
which, being received into the text, displaced the original 76 Adyw. — Ver. 7. 
’Iovorov] Syr. Erp. Sahid. Cassiod. have Titov; E 8, min. Copt. Arm. Syr. p. 
Vulg. have Titov ’Iovorov ; BD**: Tiriov I. A traditional alteration.! — Ver. 12. 
avOuraretovtos] Lachm. Born. read avfurdrov övros after A B DN, min. An 
explanatory resolution of a word not elsewhere occurring in the N. T. — Ver. 14. 
odv] Lachm. and Born. have deleted it according to important testimony. But 
it was very easily passed over amidst the cumulation of particles and between 
ueN and nN, especially as odv has not its reference in what immediately pre- 
cedes, — Ver. 15. Gjtjua] A B D** 8, min. Theophyl. and several vss. have ¢777- 
nara. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. The singular 
was, in spite of the several objects afterwards named, very easily introduced 
mechanically as an echo of adikmua and padiovpynua. — yap] is to be deleted, 
with Lachm. Tisch. Born. in accordance with A BD 8, Vulg. Copt., as a con- 
nective addition. — Ver.17. After rdvtes, Elz. Born. read of "EAAnves, which is 
wanting in AB NS, Erp. Copt. Vulg. Chrys. Bed. Some more recent codd. have, 
instead of it, of Iovdaior. Both are supplementary additions, according to dif- 
ferent modes of viewing the passage. See the exegetical remarks. — Ver. 19. 
karmvrnoe] Lachm. Tisch. read karnvraoav, after A B E NS, 40, and some vss. 
The sing. intruded itself from the context. — alroö] éxei, which Lachm. and 
Born, have according to important evidence, was imported as by far the more 
usual word. — Ver. 21. arerdééaro att. einov] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read arora£a- 
uevoS ka) eimov (with the omission of kai before av7jy9n), after A B D E &, min. 
vss. Rightly ; the Recepta is an obviously suggested simplification. — dei we rüv- 
ToS... ei$ Iepoo.] is wanting in ABE N, min. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Arm. Vulg., as 
well as dé after tuA.v. Both are deleted by Lachm. and Tisch., and condemned 
already by Mill and Bengel. But the omission is far more easily accounted for 
than the addition of these words,—occasioned possibly by xix, 21, xx. 16, or by 
the rdéAw dvax. presumed to be too abrupt,—as in what directly follows copy- 
ists, overlooking the reference of ava@as in ver, 22, found no journey of the 


1 Oceasioned by the circumstance that Justus named in i. 23 and Col. iv. 11. Wieseler 
does not elsewhere occur alone as a name, but judges otherwise, on @alat. p. 573, and in 
only asa svrname,; and that the person here Herzog’s Encykl. XXI. 276; he prefers Tırov 
meant must be a different person from those "Iovorov. 


346 CHAP; XVEE., 1, 72 


apostle to Jerusalem, and accordingly did not see the reason why Paul declined 
a longer residence at Ephesus verified by the course of his journey. — Ver. 25. 
’Inooo] Elz. has kvpiov, against decisive testimony, — Ver 26. The order Ilpiox. 
x. ’Ax. (Lachm.) is attested, no doubt, by A B E N, 13, Vulg. Copt. Aeth., but is 
to be derived from ver. 18. — tiv Tov Geov odov] AB S, min. vss. Lachm. have 77v 
606v Tov Geot ; E, vss. have Tr. 60. rod Kvpiov ; D has only ryv dddv (so Born.). With 
the witnesses thus divided, the reading of Lachm. is to be preferred as the 
best attested, 


Vv. 1, 2. In Corinth, at which Paul had arrived after his parting from 
Athens,! he met with the Jew ’AxiAac, Greek form of the Latin Aguila, 
which is to be considered as a Roman name adopted after the manner of 
the times instead of the Jewish name,’ a native of the Asiatic province of 
Pontus, but who had hitherto resided at Rome, and afterwards dwelt there 
also,’ and so probably had his dwelling-place in that city—an inference 
which is rendered the more probable, as his temporary removal to a dis- 
tance from Rome had its compulsory occasion in the imperial edict. We 
make this remark in opposition to the view of Neander, who thinks that 
Aquila had not his permanent abode at Rome, but settled, on account of 
his trade, now in one and then in another great city forming a centre of 
commerce, such as Corinth and Ephesus. The conjecture that he was a 
Sreedman of a Pontius Aquila,* so that the statement Tlovrırov TO yéver 1S an 
error,® is entirely arbitrary. Whether IpioxıA?a—identical with Prisca, 
Rom. xvi. 3, for, as is well known, many Roman names were also used in 
diminutive forms, see Grotius on Rom. /.c.—was a Roman by birth, or a 
Jewess, remains undecided. But the opinion—which has of late become 
common and is defended by Kuinoel, Olshausen, Lange, and Ewald—that 
Aquila and his wife were already Christians, having been so possibly at 
starting from Rome, when Paul met with them at Corinth, because there 
is no account of their conversion, is very forced. Luke, in fact, calls 
Aquila simply 'Iovdaiov, he does not say, tiva pabytiv ’Iovd., whereas else- 
where he always definitely makes known the Jewish Christians ; and ac- 
cordingly, by the subsequent rävrac rove 'Iovdaiovc, he places Aquila, with- 
out any distinction, among the general body of the expelled Jews. He also 
very particularly indicates as the reason of the apostle’s lodging with him, 
not their common Christian faith, but their common handicraft, ver. 3. 
It is therefore to be assumed that Aquila and Priscilla were still Jews when 
Paul met with them at Corinth, but through their connection with him they be- 
came Christians.’ This Luke, keeping in view the apostolic labours of Paul 
as a whole,’ leaves the reader to infer, inasmuch as he soon afterwards 
speaks of the Christian working of the two, ver. 26. We may add that 
the reply to the question, whether and how far Christianity existed at all 
in Rome before the decree of Claudius,® can here be of no consequence, 


1 ywpio9., comp., i. 4. 5 Reiche on Rom. xvi. 3, de Wette. 
2 See Eust. ad Dion. Per. 381. 6 See also Herzog in his Zneykl. I. p. 456. 
3 Rom. xvi. 3. 7 Comp. Baumgarten, p. 578. 


4 Cie. ad Famil. x. 83.4; Suet. Caes. 78. 8 See on Zom., Introd. § 2. 


PAUL IN CORINTH. 347 


seeing that, although there was no Christian church at Rome, individual 
Christians might still at any rate be found, and certainly were found, 
among the resident Jews there. — rpoooarwc] nuper,! from wpoogaroc, which 
properly signifies fresh, = just slaughtered or killed, then generally new, of 
quite recent occurrence.” — dıa ro duareray. KA. k.t.2.] ** Judacos impulsore 
Chresto assidue tumuliuantes Roma expulit..’* As Chrestus was actually a 
current Greck and Roman name,* it is altogether arbitrary to interpret im- 
pulsore Chresto otherwise than we should interpret it, if another name stood 
instead of Chresto. Chrestus was the name of a Jewish agitator at Rome, 
whose doings produced constant tumults, and led at length to the edict of 
expulsion.® This we remark in opposition to the hypothesis upheld, after 
older interpreters in Wolf, by most modern expositors, that Suetonius 
had made a mistake in the name and written Chresto instead of Christo— 
a view, in connection with which it is either thought that the disturbances 
arose out of Christianity having made its way among the Jewish population 
at Rome, and simply affected the Jews themselves, who were thrown into a 
ferment by it, so that the portion of them which had come to believe was 
at strife with that which remained unbelieving ;° or it is assumed’ that en- 
thusiastic Messianic hopes excited the insurrection among the Jews, and 
that the Romans had manufactured out of the ideal person of the Messiah 
a rebel of the same name. While, however, the alleged error of the name 
has against it generally the fact that the names Christus and Christiani 
were well known to the Roman writers,® it may be specially urged against 
the former view, that at the time of the edict’ the existence of an influ- 
ential number of Christians at Rome, putting the Jewish population into 
a tumultuous ferment, is quite improbable; and against the latter view, 
that the Messianic hopes of the Jews were well enough known to the Ro- 
mans in general,’® and to Suetonius in particular.“ Hence the change” of 
Christus into Chrestos (Xpnoröc) and of Christianus into Chrestianus, which 
pronunciation Tertullian rejects by perperam, may not be imputed to the 
compiler of a history resting on documentary authority, but to the misuse 
of the Roman colloquial language. Indeed, according to Tacit. Ann. xv. 


1 Polyb. iii. 37. 11, iii. 48.6; Alciphr. i. 39 ; 
Judith iv. 3,5; 2 Macc. xiv. 36. 

2 See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 374 f.; Klausen, 
ad Aesch. Choeph. 't56. 

3 Sueton. Claud. 25. 

4 Philostr. ». Soph. ii. 11; Inscr. 194; Cic. 
ad Fam. xi. 8 

5 Herzog, in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1867, p. 
541, rightly defends this explanation (against 
Pressense). The objection is entirely unim- 
portant, which Margold also (Römerbr. 1866) 
has taken, that short work would have been 
made with an insurgent Chrestus at Rome. He 
might have made a timely escape. Ormayhe 
not have been actually seized and short work 
made of him, without thereby quenching the 
fire ? See also Wieseler, p. 122, and earlier, 
Ernesti, in Suet., l.c. 


6 Wassenbergh, ad Valcken. p. 554; Kui- 
noel, Hug, Credner, Baur, Gieseler, Reuss, 
Thiersch, Ewald; also Lehmann, Stud. zur 
Gesch. d. apost. Zeitalt., Greifsw. 1856, p. 6 ff ; 
Sepp, Mangold, Beyschlag in the Stud. u. 
Krif. 1867, p. 652 f.; Laurent, neutest Stud. 
p. 88, and others. 

7 Paulus, Reiche, Neander, Lange, and oth- 
ers. 

8 Tacitus, Pliny, and Suetonius himself, 
Ner. 16. 

® Probably in the year 52, see Anger, de 
temp. rat. p. 118; Wieseler, p. 125 ff. 

10 Tacit. Hist. v. 13. 

11 Suet. Vesp. 4. 

12 Attested by Tertull. Apol. 3, ad nai. i. 3, 
and by Lactant. Inst. div. iv. 7. 5. 


348 CHAP. XVIII., 3-6. 


44: ‘‘Nero .. . poenis affecit, quos . . . vulgus Christianos appellabat ; 
auctor nominis ejus Christus,’’ etc., it must be assumed that that inter- 
change of names only became usual at a later period ; in Justin. Apol. I. 4, 
ro Xpnoröv is only an allusion to Xpiorcavoi. The detailed discussion of the 
point does not belong to us here, except in so far as the narrative of Dio 
Cass. lx. 6 appears to be at variance with this passage and with Suet. lc. : 
robc Te 'Iovdaiovce mAcovacavrac aidıc, WOTE YaAET OG av Avev Tapayyc vTO TOV OxAOV 
opav Tye TéAEwC ElpxOjval,ovVK EEHAaCE wev, Tw dE OF TATPiW vouw Alm YOwWUEVOUG 
éxéAevoe uy ovvabpoilecba.! This apparent contradiction is solved by our re- 
garding what Dio Cassius relates as something which happened before the 
edict of banishment,” and excited the Jews to the complete outbreak of insur- 
rection.” The words wore . . . eipx@nvaı, which represent the ordinance as 
a precautionary measure against the outbreak of a revolt, warrant this view. 
From xxviii. 15 ff., Rom. xvi. 3, it follows that the edict of Claudius, 
which referred not only to those making the tumult,* but, according to the 
express testimony of this passage, to all the Jews, must soon either tacitly 
or officially have passed into abeyance, as, indeed, it was incapable of being 
permanently carried into effect in all its severity. Therefore the opinion 
of Hug, Eichhorn, Schrader, and Hemsen, that the Jews returned to Rome 
only at the mild commencement of Nero’s reign, is to be rejected. — 
mavtac Tove 'Iovdaiovc] with the exception of the proselytes, Beyschlag 
thinks, so that only the national Jews were concerned. But the proselytes 
of righteousness at least cannot, without arbitrariness, be excluded from 
the comprehensive designation. 

Vv. 3, 4. It was a custom among the Jews, and admits of sufficient ex- 
planation from the national esteem for trade generally, and from the de- 
sign of rendering the Rabbins independent of others as regards their sub- 
sistence,° that the Rabbins practised a trade. Olshausen strangely holds 
that the practice was based on the idea of warding off temptations by 
bodily activity. Comp. on Mark vi. 3, according to which Christ Himself was 
a Téxt@v. — dla TO Öuörexvov eivac] SC. auröv, because he (Paul) was of the same 
handicraft. Luke might also have written dıa rd öusrexvoc eivar.° —qoar] the 
two married persons. — oxyvoroıoi] is not with Michaelis to be interpreted 
makers of art-instruments, which is merely based on a misunderstanding of 


1 Ewald, p. 346, wishes to insert ov before artificial explanation that Aquila indeed left 


Xxpwevous, 80 that the words would apply to 
the Jewish- Christians. [it otherwise. 

2 Wieseler, p. 123, and Lehmann, p. 5, view 

3To place the prohibition mentioned by 
Dio Cassius as early as the first year of Clau- 
dius, A.D. 41 (Laurent, neufest. Stud. p. 89 f.), 
does not suit the peculiar mildness and favour 
which the emperor on his accession showed 
to the Jews, according to Joseph. Antt. xix. 
5.2 f. The subsequent severity supposes a 
longer experience of need for it. Laurent, 
after Oros. vi. 7, places the edict of expulsion 
as early as the ninth year of Claudius, A.D. 
49; but he is in consequence driven to the 


Rome in A.D.49, but remained for some time in 
Italy, from which (ver. 2: amo rns ‘Iradtas) he 
only departed in A.D. 53. Thus he would not, 
in fact, have come to Corinth at all as an im- 
mcdiate consequence of that edict, which yet 
Luke, particularly by the addition of rpooda- 
ws, evidently intends to say. 

4 Credner, Hint. p. 380. 

5 Juch. xliii. 1. 2. 

6 Kühner, II. p. 352; but comp. on the ac- 
cusative Luke xi. 8, and see on the omission 
of the pronoun, where it is of itself evident 
from the preceding noun, Kiihner, § 852 b, 
and ad Xen. Mem. i. 2, 49. 


LABORS IN CORINTH. 349 


Pollux, vii. 189, nor yet with Hug and others makers of tent-cloth. It is 
true that the trade of preparing cloth from the hair of goats, which was 
also used for tents (kcRixca), had its seat in Cilicia ;! but even apart from 
the fact that the weaving of cloth was more dificult to be combined with 
the unsettled mode of life of the apostle, the word imports nothing else 
than tent-maker,* tent-tailor, which meaning is simply to be retained. Such 
a person is also called cxyvoppagoc,* and so Chrysostom* designates the apos- 
tle, whilst Origen makes him a worker in leather,’ thinking on leathern 
tents.° — &reıde is the result of dieAéyero, xvii. 2, 17. He convinced, per- 
suaded and won, Jews and Greeks, here—as it is those present in the syna- 
gogue that are spoken of —proselytes of the gate. 

Ver. 5. This activity on his part increased yet further when Silas and 
Timothy had come from Macedonia,’ in whose fellowship naturally the zeal 
and courage of Paul could not but grow.—The element of increased activity, 
in relation to what is related in ver. 4, is contained in cuveiyero ro Aöyw: he 
was wholly seized and arrested by the doctrine, so that he applied himself to it 
with assiduity and utmost earnestness.* Against my earlier rendering : he 
was pressed in respect of the doctine,’ he was hard-beset," it may be decisively 
urged, partly on linguistic grounds, that the dative with cuvéyeodac is 
always the thing itself which presses,’ partly according to the connection, 
that there results in that view no significant relation to the arrival of Silas 
and Timothy. — rov Xpıoröv 'Incovv, as in ver. 28. 

Ver. 6. The refactoriness” and reviling, which he experienced from them 
amidst this increased activity, induced him to turn to the Gentiles. — 
Extras. ra iuat.| he shook out his garments, ridding himself of the dust, in- 
dicating contempt, as in xill. 51. — ro alua iver . buor] sc. éAdéTw, Matt. 
Xxlil. 35, i.e. let the blame of the destruction, which will as a divine punishment 
reach you, light on no other than yourselves.” The expression is not to be ex- 
plained from the custom of laying the hands on the vietim,'* as Elsner and 
others suppose, or on the accused on the part of the witnesses ;’® but in all 
languages'® the head is the significant designation of the person himself, 
The significance here lies particularly in the conceptiop of the divine punish- 
ment coming from above, Rom. i. 18. — What Paul intends by the destruction 


» 


ı Plin. N. 7. vi. 28; Veget. de re mil. iv. 6; 
Serv. and Philarg. ad Virg. Georg. ili. 313, 
vo!. II. pp. 278 and 338, ed. Lion. 

2 Pollux, /.c.; Stob. ecl. phys i. 52, p 1084. 

SPACE PH. i. 


Ernpealov auto Ebioravro avTo. 

1 Comp. xxviii. 8; Luke viii. 
also Thuc. ii. 49. 3, iii. 98. 1; 
Plat. Soph. p. 250 D; 
many other passages : 


37. Comp. 
Arrian, vi. 24. 6; 
Xen. Qec. i. 21, and 
Heind. ad Plat. Soph. 


4 See also Theodoret, on 2 Cor. ii. 6: toaov- 
Tov iaxve kaı ypadwv 0 TKNVOppados. 

5 Hom. 17 in Num. 

6 Comp. de Dieu. 

7 xvii. 14 f. 

8 Comp. Wisd. xvii. 20, and Grimm in Joe. 
So in the main, following the Vulgate (‘‘in- 
stabat verbo’’), most modern interpreters, 
including Olshausen, de Wette, Baumgarten, 
Lange, Ewald. 

® Comp. on Phil. i. 

10 Comp. Chrysostom, reading to mvevmare . 


46 , particularly Wisd. xvii. 20; Herodian i. 
IR22, Nel ae vie Xv. 22 

12 Rom. xiii. 2. 

13 Comp. 2 Sam. i. 16; 1 Kings ji. 88; Ezek. 
iii. 16 ff., xxxiii. 4, 7 ff. On emi or eis T. kedba- 
Anv, see Dem. p. 323, ult. 381. 15. On the 
elliptical mode of expression, see Matt. xxvii. 
25; 2 Sam. i. 16; Plat. Zuthyd. p. 283 E; 
Arist. Plut. 526. 

14 Ley. xvi. 31 ; comp. Herod. ii. 39. 

15 So Piscator. 

16 Comp. Heinsius, ad Ov. Her. xx. 127. 


350 CHAP. XVII, 7-15. 


which he announces as certainly coming, and the blame of which he 
adjudges to themselves, is not moral corruption,’ but eternal amwketa, 
which is conceived as Sdvaroc,? and therefore symbolized as aiua to be shed, 
because the blood is the seat of life.* The setting in of this aroAeıa occurs 
at the Parousia, 2 Thess. i. 8. Thus Paul, as his conduct was already in 
point of fact for his adversaries an évderéic arwAclac,* expressly gives to 
them such an évdecEic. — kadapöc éyo] comp. xx. 26. — ano tov viv K.r.A.] as 
in xiii. 46. 

Ver. 7. Paul immediately gave practical proof of this solemn renunciation 
of the Jews by departing from the synagogue,° and went, not into the 
house of a Jew, but into that of a proselyte, the otherwise unknown Justus, 
who is not to be identified with Titus.° That Paul betook himself to the 
non-Jewish house nearest to the synagogue, is entirely in kceping with the 
profoundly excited emotion under which he acted, and with his decision of 
character. — ovvouopeiv] to border upon, is not found elsewhere ; the Greeks 
use öuopeiv in that sense. Observe, moreover, that a change of lodging is not 
mentioned. 

Ver. 8. This decided proceeding made a remarkable impression, so that 
even Crispus, the president of the synagogue, whom the apostle himself 
baptized,’ with all his family, believed on the Lord,* and that generally 
many Corinthians, Jews and Gentiles, for the house of the proselyte was ac- 
cessible to both, heard him and received faith and baptism. 

Vv. 9-11.° But Jesus Himself, appearing to Paul in a night-vision,'° in- 
fused into him courage for fearless continuance in work. — Ad2ec x. un ctw. | 
solemnly emphatie.""— dıörı is both times simply propterea quod. — yd] 
Bengel well says: ‘‘fundamentum fiduciae.’’ — £rıßyoerai cou rov Kak. ce] will 
set on thee (aggredi) to injure thee. On the classical expression érutifecOai rıvı, 
to set on one, 1.e. impetum facere in alig., see many examples in Wetstein and 
Kypke. The attempt, in fact, which was made at a later period under 
Gallio, signally failed.— dıörı Aadc K.r.A.] gives the reason of the assurance, 
éy@ ele peta cov, kK. 0vd. Emidno. cot Tow Kak. oe. Under His people Jesus under- 
stands not only thoge already converted, but likewise proleptically '* those 
who are destined to be members of the church purchased by His blood,’** — 
the whole multitude of the rerayuevor eic Cwyv aidviov * at Corinth. — éravrov 
x. ujvac &] The terminus ad quem is the attempt of the Jews,'° and not '® 
the departure of Paul, ver. 18. For after Luke in vv. 9, 10 has narrated 


1De Wette, who sees here an un-Pauline 
expression. 

2 Rom. i. 32, vi. 16, 21, 23, vii. 5, 10, 13, 24, 
Vill. 2, 6 al. 

31 Comp. on xv. 20. 

4 Phil. i. 28. 

5 exeıdev, Which Heinrichs and Alford after 
Calvin explain, contrary to the context, ex 
domo Aquilae. 


f., ver. 11 was a marginal note of Luke to 
nuepas ikavas, ver. 18. But ver. 11 is by no 
means superfluousin its present textual posi- 
tion, but attests the fulfilment of the promise, 
ver 10. 

10 Comp. ix. 10. 

11 Comp. Isa. Ixii.1, and see on John i. 3, 20. 

12 Comp. John x. 16, xi. 52. 

13 xx.28; Eph.i. 14. 


6 Wieseler. 

71 Cor, i. 14. 

8 xvi. 15, 34. 

® According to Laurent, neut. Stud. p. 148 


14 xiii. 48. 
15 Ver. 12. 
16 In opposition to Anger, de temp. rat. p. 62 


f., and Weiseler, p. 45 f. 


ENCOURAGED BY A VISION. sl. 


the address and promise of Jesus, he immediately, ver. 11, observes how 
long Paul in consequence of this had his residence, ö.e. his quiet abode, at 
Corinth,' attending to his ministry ; and he then im vv. 12-18 relates how on 
the other hand? an attack broke out, indeed, against him under Gallio, but 
passed over so harmlessly that he was able to spend before his departure 
yet° a considerable time at Corinth, ver. 18. — éy airoic] i.e. among the 
Corinthians, which is undoubtedly evident from the preceding év rq 76. r. 

Vv. 12, 13. Achaia, i.e. according to the Roman division of provinces, 
the whole of Greece proper, including the Peloponnesus, so that by its side 
Macedonia, Illyria, Epirus, and Thessaly formed the province Macedonia, 
and these two provinces comprehended the whole Grecian territory, which 
originally had been a senatorial province,* but by Tiberius was made an 
imperial one,’ and was again by Claudius ® converted into a senatorial prov- 
ince,’ and had in the years 53 and 54 for its proconsul® Jun. Ann. Gallio, 
who had assumed this name — his proper name was M. Ann. Novatus — from 
L. Jun. Gallio, the rhetorician, by whom he was adopted. He was a 
brother of the philosopher L. Ann. Seneca,° and was likewise put to death 
by Nero.'°— karer£or.] they stood forth against him, is found neither in Greek 
writers nor in the LXX. — rapa r. vöu.] i.e. against the Jewish law. To 
the Jews the exercise of religion according to their laws was conceded 
by the Roman authority. Hence the accusers expected of the proconsul 
measures to be taken against Paul, whose religious doctrines they found at 
variance with the legal standpoint of Mosaism. Luke gives only the chief 
point of the complaint. For details, see ver. 15. 

Vv. 14, 15. The mild and humane Gallio’? refuses to examine into the 
complaint, and hands it over, as simply concerning doctrine, to the decision 
of the accusers themselves—to the Jewish tribunal—without permitting 
Paul, who was about to begin his defence, to speak. —oiv] namely, in 
pursuance of your accusation. — padwipy. buov] I should with reason '® bear 
with you, i.e. according to the context: give you a patient hearing.’ 
“ Judaeos Gallion sibi molestos innuit,”’ Bengel. — ei dé Inryuara . . . imac] 
but if, as your complaint shows, there are questions in dispute, xv. 2, concern- 
ing doctrine and names—plural of category ; Paul’s assertion that the name of 
Messiah belonged to Jesus, was the essential matter of fact in the case, see 
ver. 5—and of your, and so not of Roman, law. — rov ka’ ünäc] See on xvii. 
28. —xpirye x.t-A.] Observe the order of the words, judge will I for my part, 
etc. Thus Gallio speaks in the consciousness of his political official po- 


1 éxaOuce, as in Luke xxiv. 49. 1) See on ver. 15. They do not mean the law 
2 e, ver. 12, marks a contrast to ver. 11. of the state ; nor yet do they express them- 
3 Observe this Erı, ver 18. selves in a double sense (Lange, apost. Zeitalt. 
4 Dio Cass. liii. p. 704. II. p. 240). Gallio well knew what o vouos 
5 Tacit. Ann. i. 76. signified in the mouth of a Jew. 

6 Suet. Claud. 25. 12 Stat. Silv. ii. 7, 32; Seneca, Q. Nat. 4 
7 See Hermann, Staatsalterth. § 190, 1-3. praef. 

8 av@umaros, see on Xiil. 7. 13 See Plat. Rep. p.366 B; Wetstein in loc. ; 
9 Tacit. Ann. xv. 73, xvi. 17. Bernhardy, p. 241. 


10 See Lipsius, in Senec. prooem. 2, and ep. 14 Comp. Plat. Phil. p.18B; Rep. p. 367 D. 
104; Winer, Realw. 


352 CHAP. XVIII., 16-18. 


sition ; and his wise judgment—which Calovius too harshly designates as 
auérera atheistica—is after a corresponding manner to be borne in mind in 
determining the limits of the ecclesiastical power of princes as bearing on 
the separation of the secular and spiritual government, with due attention, 
however, to the circumstance that Gallio was outside the pale of the Jewish 
religious community. 

Vv. 16, 17. ’Ax#2Aacev] he dismissed them as plaintiffs, whose information 
it was not competent to him to entertain.! — Under the legal pretext of the 
necessity of supporting this aryAacev of the proconsul, all the bystanders— 
rävres, partly perhaps Roman subordinate officials, but certainly all Gentiles, 
therefore oi "EAAnvec is a correct gloss—used the opportunity of wreaking 
their anger on the leader and certainly also the spokesman of the hated 
Jews; they seized Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue, even before the 
tribunal, and beat him. — Zwodévy¢ is by Theodoret, Erasmus, Calvin, and 
others, also Hofmann,’ very arbitrarily, especially as this name was so com- 
mon, considered as identical with the person mentioned in 1 Cor. i. 1; 
hence also the erroneous gloss oi 'Iovdaioı added to ravrec has arisen from the 
supposition that he either was at this time actually a Christian, or at least 
inclined to Christianity, and therefore not sufficiently energetic in his ac- 
cusation. Against this may be urged the very part which Sosthenes, as 
ruler of the synagogue, evidently plays against Paul;* and not less the 
circumstance, that the person mentioned in 1 Cor. i. 1 was a fellow-labourer 
of Paul out of Corinth ; according to which, for the identification of the 
two, amore extended hypothesis would be necessary, such as Ewald has. 
Chrysostom considers him even identical with Orispus. —rov äpxıovv. | 
Whether he was a colleague * of the above-named Kpioroc, ver. 8, or suc- 
cessor to him on his resignation in consequence of embracing Christianity,° 
or whether he presided over another synagogue in Corinth,° remains un- 
determined. — kai oidév robrwv x.7.4.] and Gallio troubled himself about none 
of these things, which here took place ; he quite disregarded the spectacle. 
The purpose of this statement is to exhibit the utter failure of the attempt. 
So little was the charge successful, that even the leader of the accusers 
himself was beaten by the rabble without any interference of the judge, 
who by this indifference tacitly connived with the accused. 

See on Mark vi. 46. — 
Ketpauevoc T. ked.] is not to be referred to Paul, as Augustine, Beda, Eras- 
mus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Calovius, Spencer, Reland, Wolf, Bengel, Rosen- 
miller, Morus, Olshausen, Zeller, de Wette, Baumgarten, Lange, Hackett, 
Lechler, Ewald, Sepp, Bleek, and others connect it, but to Aguila, with 


Ver. 18. ’Arordoceotai rwı] to say farewell to one. 


1 Comp. Dem. 272. 11, 1373. 12. character would thus be the result! And 


2 Heil. Schr.d. N. T. IL. ii. p. 4 f. 

3 According to Hofmann, he was so linked 
with his people, that, although inwardly con- 
vinced by the preaching of the apostle, he yet 
appeared at the head of the furious multitude 
before the proconsul against Paul, because he 
eonld not forsake the synagogue. What a 


what reader could from the simple words put 
together for himself traits so odious! How 
entirely different were Joseph and Nicode- 
mus ! 
4 See on xiii. 15. {and others. 
5 Olshausen, de Wette, Baumgarten, Ewald, 
* Grotius. 


AQUILA AND PRISCILLA. 359 
Vulgate, Theophylact,! Castalio, Hammond, Grotius, Alberti, Valckenaer, 
Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Wieseler, Schneckenburger, also Oertel.” A decisive 
consideration in favour of this is the order of the names IIpionAda cai’ Akbdac, 
which * appears as designedly chosen. Luke, if he had meant the xeıpau. of 
Paul, would, by placing the wife first, have led the reader himself into 
error, whereas, with the precedence naturally given to the husband, no one 
would have thought of referring xecpau. to any other than Paul as the prin- 
cipal subject of the sentence. If, accordingly, xeıpau. is to be referred to 
Aguila, Luke has with design and foresight placed the names so ; but if it 
be referred to Paul, he has written with a strange, uncalled for, and mis- 
leading deviation from vv. 2 and 26.4 On the other hand, appeal is no 
doubt made to Rom. xvi. 3,° where also the wife stands first ;° but Paul 
here followed a point of view determining his arrangement,’ which was not 
followed by Luke in his history, as is evident from vv. 2 and 26. Accord- 
ingly, we do not need to have recourse to the argument, that it could not 
but at all events be very strange to see the liberal Paul thus, entirely with- 
out any higher necessity or determining occasion given from without, 
voluntarily engaging himself in a Jewish votive ceremony. How many 
occasions for vows had he in his varied fortunes, but we never find a trace 
that he thus became a Jew to the Jews! If there had been at that time a 
special reason for accommodation to such an exceptionally legal ceremony, 
Luke would hardly have omitted to give some more precise indication of it,° 
and would not have mentioned the matter merely thus in passing, as if it 
were nothing at all strange and exceptional in Paul’s case. Of Aguila, a 
subordinate, he might throw in thus, without stating the precise circum- 
stances, the cursory notice how it happened that the married couple joined 
Paul on his departure at the seaport ; regarding Paul as the bearer of such 
a vow, he could not but have entered into particulars. Nothing is gained 
by importing suggestions of some particular design ; e.g. Erasmus-here dis-. 
covers in obsequium charitatis toward the Jews, to whom Paul had appeared: 
as a despiser of their legal customs ;’° Bengel supposes” that the purpose: 
of the apostle was: ‘‘ut necessitatem sibi imponeret celeriter peragendi 
iter hoc Hierosolymitanum ;’’ Neander presupposes some occasion for the: 
public expression of gratitude to God in the spirit of Christian wisdom ; 
and Baumgarten thinks that ‘‘ we should hence infer that Paul, during his. 
working at Corinth, lived in the state of weakness and self-denial ap- 


7 See on Rom, xvi. 3. 

8 The case in xxi. 23 ff. is different. 

9 Comp. xvi. 3. 

10 And so insubstance Lange, apost. Zeitalt. 


1 Chrysostom and Oecumenius do not clear- 
ly express to whom they refer keıpau. But in 
the Vulgate (‘‘ Aquila, qui sibi totonderat in 
Cenchris caput ’’) the reference is undoubted. 


2 Paul. in d. Apyesch. p. 191. 

8 Comp. with vv. 2 and 26. 

* Comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 19. It is true that A B 
E 8 have also in ver. 26 Ipiox. x. ’AkvAas (SO 
Lachm.), but that transposition has evidently 
arisen from our passage. 

5 Comp. 2 Tim. iv. 19. 

€ Sec especially, Neander, p. 349, and Zeller, 
p. 304, 


Il. p. 246 f. 

11 With Bengel agrees in substance Ewald, 
p. 502, who supposes that Paul, in order, per- 
haps, not to be fettered by Priscilla and 
Aquila in Ephesus. made the solemn vow of 
his desire to be at Jcrusalem even before 
Easter, and in sign thereof shaved his head, 
which had no connection with the Nazarite 
vow. and is rather to be compared to fasting. 


354 CHAP. XVIII., 19-21. 


pointed by the law and placed under a special constitution ;’?! whereas 
Zeller uses the reference to Paul in order to prove a design of the writer to 
impute to him Jewish piety. — év Keyxpeaic] Keyypeat (in Thuc. Keyypecai) 
koum Kal Auumv aréxov THE TéAEwS boov EBdounkovra oradıa. Tovrw pév ody ypovTac 
mpoc Tove éx THE’ Aciac, mpög dé Tove Ex THC "ITahiag 7H AEyaiw, Strabo, viii. 6, 
p. 380. — lye yap evyfv| states the reason of xeıpau. T. xed. év K. : for he had 
a vow on him, which he discharged by having his head shorn at Cenchreae. 
— The vow itself is not to be considered as a Nazarite vow, called by Philo, 
evyn weyaan, according to which a man bound himself, for the glory of 
Jehovah, to permit his hair to grow for a certain time and to abstain from 
all intoxicating drink, ‘‘ Tres species sunt prohibitae Nasiraeis, immundities, 
tonsura et quicquid de vite egreditur,’’* and then after the lapse of the 
consecrated time to have his hair shorn off before the temple, and to pre- 
sent a sacrifice, into the flames of which the hair was cast.* For the re- 
demption of such a vow had to take place, as formerly at the tabernacle, 
so afterwards at the temple and consequently in Jerusalem ;° and entirely 
without proof Grotius holds: ‘‘haec praecepta . . . eos non obligabant, 
qui extra Judacam agebant.’’ If it is assumed ° that the Nazarite vow had 
in this case been interrupted by a Levitical uncleanness, such as by contact 
with a dead person, according to Lange, by intercourse with Gentiles, and 
was begun anew by the shearing off of the hair already consecrated but 
now polluted,’ this is a mere empty supposition, as the simple eiye yap ev yqv 
indicates nothing at all extraordinary. And even the renewal of an inter- 
rupted Nazarite vow was bound to the temple.* Therefore a proper Naza- 
rite vow is here entirely out of the question ; it is to be understood as a 
private vow (votum civile) which Aquila had resting upon him, and which he 
discharged at Cenchreae by the shaving of his head. On the occasion of some 
circumstances unknown to us,—perhaps under some distress, in view of 
eventual deliverance,—he had vowed to let his hair grow for a certain 
time ; this time had now elapsed, and therefore he had his head shorn 
at Cenchreae.® The permitting the hair to grow is, in the Nazarite state, 
according to Num. vi. 7, nothing else than the sign of complete consecration 
to God,” not that of a blessed, flourishing life, which meaning Bihr" im- 
ports ;'” nor yet, from the later view of common life, 1 Cor. xi. 14, a repre- 
sentation of man’s renunciation of his dignity and of his subjection to God," 
which is entirely foreign to the matter. In a corresponding manner is the 
usage in the case of the vow to be understood. For the vow was certainly 
analogous to the Nazarite state, in so far as one idea lay at the root of 


1 [This is a literal rendering. The meaning ® Comp. Salamasius, de coma, p. 710 ; Wolf, 
seems to me obscure.—ED.] Cur. in loc. ; Spencer, de leg. Jud. rit. p. 862 

2 Num. vi. ff. 

3 Mischna Nasir, vi. 1. 10 Whence also Judg. xvi. 17 is to be ex- 

4See Num. /.c.; Ewald, Alterth. p.113 ff. plained. Comp. Ewald, Alterth. p. 115. 
Comp. on xxi. 23 ff. 13 Symbol. II. p. 432 f. 

5 Num. vi., Reland, Antiquitt. p. 277. 12 Comp., in opposition to this, Keil, Ar- 

* Wolf, Stolz, Rosenmiiller. chäol. § \xvii. 11. 

7 Num. vi. 10. 13 Baumgarten. 


® See Num. vi. 10. 14 See Ewald, Alterth. p. 28 f. 


PAUL RETURNS TO ANTIOCH. 355 


both; but it was again specifically different from it, as not requiring the 
official intervention of the priests, and as not bound to the temple and to 
prescribed forms. Neander correctly describes the cif in this passage ' as 
a modification of the Nazarite vow ; but for this very reason it seems errone- 
cus that he takes the shearing of the head as the commencement of the re- 
demption of the vow, and not as its termination.” See Num. vi. 5, 18; 
Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 15, 1: rove yap 7 voow karamovovusvovc, 7 Ticw üAAarc 
avayxatc, ioc ebxeodaı mpd Tpıdkovra HuspOv, 7c amodwoeın yeAroıev Ovoiac, oivov 
te agéEacbai Kai Zuppoaodaı tac köuac, where the meaning from oc onwards 
is thus to be taken: ‘ They are accustomed, thirty days before the in- 
tended presentation of the offering, to vow that they will abstain from 
wine and, at the end of that period, have the head shorn.’’—A special set 
purpose, moreover, on the part of Luke, in bringing in this remark con- 
cerning Aquila, cannot be proved, whether of a conciliatory nature,*® with 
the assumed object of indirectly defending Paul against the charge of an- 
tagonism to the law, or by way of explaining the historical nexus of cause 
and effect,* according to which his object would be to give information 
concerning the delay of the departure of the apostle, and concerning his 
leaving Ephesus more quickly. 

Vv. 19, 20. Karédurev aurou] he left them there, separated himself from 
them, so that he without them—airéc, he on his part—went to the synagogue, 
there discoursed with the Jews,’ and then, without longer stay, pursued 
his journey. The shift, to which Schneckenburger has recourse, that airic 
dé properly belongs to arera£. aitoic, is impossible ; and that of de Wette, 
that Luke has written kaxeivouc kar&Aır. ait. in anticipation, ‘in order, as it 
were, to get rid of these secondary figures,”’ is arbitrarily harsh. — We may 
remark, that within this short abode of the apostle at Ephesus occurred the 
first foundation of a church there, with which the visit to the synagogue 
and discussion with the Jews are appropriately in keeping as the commence- 
ment of his operations. So much the less, therefore, is an earlier presence 
there and foundation of the church to be assumed.®— mi mA. yp.| for @ 
longer time. It was to take place only at a later period, chap. xix. 

Ver. 21. What feast was meant by nv éopryv ryv épyou. must remain un- 
determined, as dei we tavtwe does not allow us absolutely to exclude the 
winter season dangerous for navigation, and as the indefinite „Ju£pac ikavas, 
ver. 18—which period is not included in the one and a half years ’—pre- 
vents an exact reckoning. It is commonly supposed to be either Haster or 
Pentecost. The latter by Anger.° The former ® is at least not to be inferred 
from the use of the article ‘‘ the feast,’’ which in general," and here specially 
on account of the addition r7v épyou., would be an uncertain ground. The 


1 Comp. Bengel. 6 As Marker (Steilung d. Pastoralbriefe, 
2 Comp. Calovius: “Causa redditur, cur 1861, p. 4 f.) places the same between ix. 30 
Paulus navigarit in Syriam, quia sc. votum and xi. 25. 


fecerat, quod expleri debebat in templo Hi- 7 See on ver. 11. 

erosolymitano.”’ 8 De temp. rat. p. 60 ff.,and Wieseler, p. 
3 Schneckenburger, p. 66. 48 ff. 
4 Wieseler, p. 203, conjecturally. 9 Ewald. 


SiVer.4, xy. 2,17. 10 Fritzsche, a2. Matth. p. 804. 


356 CHAP. XVIII., 22-25. 


motive, also, of the determination indicated by dei is completely unknown. 
—roveiv] as in ver. 23; see on xv. 33. —eic ‘Iepoodd.|1—madw dé x.T.A. | 
which took place, xix. 1. 

Vv. 22, 23. Fourth journey to Jerusalem, according to chap. ix., xi., xv. — 
From Ephesus Paul sailed to Caesarea—i.e. Caesarea Stratonis, the best and 
most frequented harbour in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem ; not, as 
Jerome, Beda, and Lyra suppose, Caesarea in Cappadocia, against which 
the very word av7x0n7 serves as a proof—and from thence he went up to 

i Jerusalem, whence he proceeded down to Antioch. —avafBdc] namely, to 
Jerusalem. So Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Bengel, Rosenmüller, Hein- 
richs, Olshausen, Neander, Anger,’ de Wette, Weiseler, Baumgarten, Lange, 
Ewald, and others. Others refer it to Caesarea, so Calovius, Wolf, Kuinoel, 
Schott, and several others, and think that the word is purposely chosen, 
either because the city was situated high up from the shore,* or because the 
church had its place of meeting in an elevated locality.‘ The reference to 
Caesarea would be necessary, if der we mévtTwc x.T.A.,. ver. 21, were not 
genuine ; for then the reference to Jerusalem would have no ground assigned 
for it in the context. But with the genuineness of that asseveration, ver. 
21, the historical connection requires that ava. x. aorac. r. éxxd. should 
contain the fulfilment of it. In favour of this we may appeal both te the 
relation in meaning of the following kar£ßr to this avaßac, and to the cir- 
cumstance that it would be very strangely in contrast to the hurried brevity 
with which the whole journey is despatched in ver. 22, if Luke should 
have specially indicated in the case of Caesarea not merely the arrival at it, 
but also the going up (?) toit. In spite of that hurried brevity, with which 
the author scarcely touches on this journey to Jerusalem, and mentions in 
regard to the residence there no intercourse with the Jews, no visit to the 
temple, and the like, but only a salutation of the church,® the fidelity of 
the apostle to the Jewish festivals has been regarded as the design of the 
narrative,° and the narrative itself as invented.’ The identification of the 
journey with that mentioned in Gal. ii. 1° is incompatible with the aim of 
the apostle in adducing his journeys to Jerusalem in that passage. See on 
Galatians. Nor can the encounter with Peter, Gal. ii. 11, belong to the 
residence of Paul at that time in Antioch.® — rv Tatar. x. r. dpvy.] certainly, 
also, Lycaonia, xiv. 21, although Luke does not expressly name it. On 
Eniornpißov, comp. xiv. 22, xv. 32, 41. 

Vv. 24-28. Notice interposed concerning Apollos, who, during Paul’s ab- 
sence from Ephesus, came thither as a Messianic preacher proceeding from 
the school of the disciples of John, completed his Christian training there, 
and then before the return of the apostle, xix. 1, departed to Achaia. 


1 See Winer, p. 387 (E. T. 518). whom Paul now recognized it as incompatible 
2 De temp. rat. p. 60 f. with his more extended apostolic mission to 
3 Kuinoel and others. meddle. See Ewald, p. 503 f. 
4 De Dieu and others. © Schneckenburger. 
5 The so short residence of the apostle in 7 Zeller, Hausrath ; comp. Holtzmann, p. 
Jerusalem is sufficiently intelligible from the 69. 
certainly even at that time (comp. xxi. 21 ff.) 8 Wieseler. 


very excited temper of the Judaists, with ® Neander, Wieseler, Lange, Baumgarten. 


APOLLOS. 357 


Ver. 24.’ *AroAAdc] the abbreviated ’AroAAdr0c, as D actually has it. 
His working was peculiarly influential in Corinth. — Adyioc] may mean 
either learned or eloquent.* Neander, also Vatablus, takes it in the former 
signification. But the wswal rendering, eloguens, corresponds quite as well 
with his Alexandrian training, after the style of Philo, and is decidedly in- 
dicated as preferable by the reference to vv. 25 and 28, as well as by the 
characteristic mode of Apollos’s work at Corinth. Besides, the Scripture- 
learning is particularly brought forward alongside of Aoyıornc by duvarig ov 
év tr. ypag. : he had in the Scriptures, in the understanding, exposition, and 
application of them, a peculiar power, for the conviction and winning of 
hearts, refutation of opponents, and the like. 

Ver. 25. Karnynu£voc r. 60. r. Kup.| Apollos was instructed concerning the 
way of the Lord, i.e. concerning Christianity as a mode of life appointed 
and shaped by Christ through means of faith in Him,‘ doubtless by dis- 
ciples of John, as follows from £rıorau. uövov tr. Batt. ’Iodvvov. How im- 
perfect this instruction had been in respect of the doctrinal contents of 
Christianity,° appears from the fact that he knew nothing of a distinctively 
Christian baptism. He stood in this respect on the same stage with the 
wadnraiin xix. 2; but, not maintaining the same passive attitude as they did, 
he was already—under the influence of the partial and preliminary light of 
Christian knowledge—full of a profound, living fervour, as if seething and 
boiling in his spirit, ö.e. in the potency of his higher self-conscious life, ® so 
that he éAade kai Edidaonev axpiBac ra repl Tov ’Inoov. What had reference to 
Jesus, to whom as the Messiah John had borne witness, was naturally that 
concerning which he had in his Johannean training received most informa- 
tion and taken the deepest interest. He must have regarded Jesus—His 
historical person—actually as the Messiah, not merely as a precursor of 
Him,’ which Bleek erroneously denies, contrary to the express words of the 
passage ; but he still needed a more accurate Christian instruction, which 
he received, ver. 26. The incompleteness and even the lack to some extent 
of correctness in his Christian knowledge, made him, with his might in the 
Scriptures and fervour in spirit—which latter was under the control of the 
former—not incapable to teach, according to the measure of his knowledge, 
with accuracy ® concerning Jesus, although he himself had to be instructed 
yet axpıß&orepov, ver. 26, in opposition to Baur and Zeller, who find here con- 
tradictory statements. In a corresponding manner, for example, a mission- 
ary may labour with an incomplete and in part even defective knowledge 
of the way of salvation, if he is mighty in the Scriptures and of fervent spirit. 
— 214A. x. édid. are simply to be distinguished as genus and species; and 


ı On Apollos, see Heymann in the Sdchs. 
Stud. 1843, p. 222 ff.; Bleck on Hebr. Introd. 
p. 394 ff. ; Ewald, p. 513 ff. We should know 
him better, if he were the author of the 
Epistle to the Hebrews, which, however, re- 
mains a matter of great uncertainty. 

21 Cor. i. 12, iii. 5 f., iv. 6 ff. 

3 See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p.198 ; Jacobs, ad 
Anthol. XII. p. 116. 


4 See on ix. 2. 

5 Erasmus, Paraphr.: “hie Apollos erat 
semichristianus,”” 

6 Céewy TS TVEVpaTL, See on Rom, xii. 11. 

7 Baumgarten. 

8 Not to be taken in a subjective sense; 
carefully (Beza and others), which the com- 
parative in ver. 26 does not suit. 


358 CHAP Ovid 027, 28 
axpiBac, exactly, receives its limitation by émor. pov. r. B. I. — émtorapevog 
pov. r. Barr. Iwdvvov] although, etc. The view, that by this an absolute 
ignorance of Christian baptism is expressed, is incredible in itself, and not 
to be assumed on account of John iii. 26. Notwithstanding, the simple 
literal sense is not to be interpreted, with Lange,' as though Apollos was 
wanting only in ‘‘ complete Christian experience of salvation and maturi- 
ty ;’’ but, inasmuch as he did not recognise the characteristic distinction of 
the Christian baptism from that of John, he knew not that the former was 
something superior to the latter ;? he knew only the baptism of John.* 
Ver. 26. Té] to which dé afterwards corresponds. ‘— jpgaro | beginning of the 
Immediately afterwards Aquila and Priscilla, who had 
temporarily settled in Ephesus,° and had heard him speak — from which 
they could not but learn what he lacked —took him to themselves for 
private instruction. — rv rod Beov ddév] the same as tiv dddv Tr. Kupiov, Ver. 
25, inasmuch as the whole work of Christ is the work of God. That, also 
Christian baptism was administered to Apollos by Aquila, is neither to be 
assumed as self-evident,° nor is it to be arbitrarily added, with Olshausen, 
that he first received the Holy Spirit at Corinth by Paul (?). Ewald cor- 
rectly remarks : ‘‘there could be no mention of a new baptism in the case 
of a man already, in a spiritual sense, moved deeply enough.’’” The Holy 
Spirit had already taken up His abode in his fervent spirit,—a relation 
which could only be furthered by the instruction of Aquila and Priscilla. 
Ver. 27. AveAGeiv ei¢ tr.’ Ayaiav] probably occasioned by what he had heard 
from Aquila and Priscilla concerning the working of Paul at Corinth. — 
mpotpew. ol ad. &ypanı. roic uadyr. arod. avt.] The Christians already at Ephesus’ 
wrote exhorting, issued a letter of exhortation, to the disciples, the Christians 
of Achaia, to receive him hospitably as a teacher of the gospel. So Luther, 
Castalio, and others, also de Wette and Ewald. The contents of their 
letter constituted a Aöyoc rpotpertixéc.® But many others, as Erasmus, Beza, 
Grotius, Bengel, following Chrysostom (rporéurovor xk. ypauuara erıdıdöaoın), 
refer rpotpey. to Apollos” as its object, not to the pzabyrac, ‘* sua exhortatione 
ipsum magis incitaverunt fratres et currenti addiderunt calcar,’’ Calvin; 
according to which we should necessarily expect either a defining avrév with 
mpotpep., Or previously BovAöuevov dé aitév. — ovveBarero| he contributed much," 
helped much.” This meaning, not disserwit,'? is required by the following 
yap. — Toig merıorevröoı| Bengel appropriately remarks: ‘‘ rigavit Apollos, 
non plantavit.’’ 4—0d.a tij¢ yapitoc| is not to be connected with roig remor.,® 
but with oweß. oat ; for the design of the text is to characterize Apollos 


Tappyo. Ev TH ovvay. 


1 Apost. Zeitalt. II. p. 260. 

2 xix. 3, 4. [p. 28 f. 

3 Comp. Oertel, Paulus in der Apostelgesch. 

4 See Winer, p. 409 (E. T. 548); Kühner, ad 
Xen. Anab. v. 5. 8. 

5 Ver. 18 f. 

6 Erasmus, Grotius, and others, 

7 See on xix. 5. 

8 Doubtless but few at first, vv. 19 f. 

® Plat. Clit. p. 410 D. 


10 This reference is implied also in the am- 
plification of the whole verse in D, which 
Bornemann has adopted. 

11 Contulit, Valg.; profuit, Cod. It. 

12 Dem. 558. 13; Plat. Zegg. x. p. 905 C; 
Polyb. i. 2. 8, ii. 13.1; Philo, migr. Adr. p. 
422 D. 

13 xvii. 18. 

14 Comp. 1 Cor. iii. 6. 

15 Hammond,de Weite, Hackett, and others. 


NOTES. 359 


and his workings, and not the remorevk. The yapic is to be explained of 
the divine grace sustaining and blessing his efforts. Not only is the view of 
Hammond and Bolten, that it denotes the gospel, to be rejected, but also 
that of Raphel, Wetstein, and Heinrichs, that it signifies facundia dicendique 
venustas, in which case the Christian point of view of Luke, according to 
which he signalizes that cuveBad. roAd, is entirely mistaken. Apollos thus 
laboured, not by his art, but by grace. But the reception of baptism is not 
presupposed by this ydpic, in opposition to Grotius ; see on ver. 26. 

Ver. 28. Eirévwc] nervously, vigorously, also in Greek writers used of ora- 
tors. Comp. Luke xxiii. 10. — dcaxar72.| stronger than kar7%.; not preserved 
elsewhere. The dative of reference! is to be rendered : ‚for the Jews, i.e. 
over against the Jews, to instruct them better, he held public refutations, so 
that he showed, etc. —dyyocia] The opposite is idie.” It comprehends more 
than the activity in the synagogue.* — dia rov ypag.] by means of the Script- 
‘ures, whose expressions he made use of for the explanation and proof of his 
proposition that Jesus was the Messiah, *Ijcovv is the subject, comp. ver. 5. 
—The description of the ministry of Apollos, vv. 27, 28, entirely agrees with 
1 Cor. iii. 6. 


Notes BY AMERICAN EDITOR. 


(2?) Corinth. V.1. 


Corinth, distant from Athens about 45 miles, was situated on an isthmus, 
between two seas, the Aügean and the Ionian, on each of which, respectively, 
were the ports of Cenchrea and Lecheum. Hence called ‘‘ The City of the Two 
Seas,” Its favorable position rendered it a vast commercial emporium. It was 
also a city of great military importance, as it commanded the entrance into the 
peninsula. In ancient and in modern times, armies have contended for the 
possession of the lofty citadel of this city, called by Xenophon ‘“ The Gate of 
the Peloponnesus,”’ and by Pindar the ‘‘ Bridge of the Sea.” 

This city differed much in almost every respect from Athens. Athens was a 
Greek free city, Corinth was a Roman colony. Athens was a seat of learning, 
Corinth a mart of commerce. At Coninth, more than anywhere else, the 
Greek race could be seen in all its life and activity. 

The ancient city, so renowned in Grecian history, and which rivalled even 
Rome, had been destroyed and fora century lay in ruins ; but, nearly a century 
before the time of Paul’s visit, the city was rebuilt by Julius Cesar, and it quickly 
surpassed its former opulence and splendor. “Splendid buildings, enriched 
with ancient pillars of marble and porphyry and adorned with gold and silver, 
soon began to rise side by side with the wretched huts of wood and straw, which 
sheltered the mass of the poorer population. The life of the wealthier in- 
habitants was marked by self-indulgence and intellectual restlessness, and the 
mass of the people, even down to the slaves, were more or less affected by the 
prevailing tendency. Corinth was the Vanity Fair of the Roman Empire, at 
once the London and the Paris of the first century after Christ.’”’ (Farrar.) 


1 Comp. Symm., Job xxxix. 32: SveAeyxope- 2 Xen. Hier. xi. 9. 
vos Ocw. 3 See xix. 9. 


360 CHAP. XVIII., NOTES. 


It was no less notorious for vice and licentiousness than it was famous for its 
magnificence and refinement. For while Cicero calls it ‘‘ totius Greecize lumen,”’ 
the light of all Greece, and Florus designates it ‘‘ Greecize decus,” the glory of 
Greece,” so low had it sunk in morals, that to live like a Corinthian became 
proverbial for a course of wanton licentiousness and reckless dissipation. It 
was “a populous city, rich, brilliant, frequented by numerous strangers, centre 
of an active commerce. The characteristic feature which rendered its name 
proverbial was the extreme corruption of manners displayed there.” (Renan.) 
To this vast city, with its teeming mixed population of Jews, Greeks, and 
Romans, where strife and uncleanness prevailed, the apostle came to preach 
the gospel of peace and purity, and he did so with great power and success, 


(8) Gallio. V. 15. 


Gallio was the brother of Seneca, the celebrated moralist, who dedicated two 
of his books to him. He possessed those qualities which render a man a general 
favorite. He was characterized as the ‘‘dulcis Gallio.” 

“He was a man of fine mind and noble soul, the friend of the poets and 
celebrated writers. Such a man must have been little inclined to receive the 
demands of fanatics, coming to ask the civil power, against which they protest 
in secret, to free them of their enemies.’’ (fenan.) 

Seneca says: “Nemo mortalium uni tam dulcis est, quam hie omnibus.”’ 
And the narrative of Luke represents him as acting in harmony with such a dis- 
position. In the matter brought before him, he acted the part of a wise and 
upright judge. The question was one which did not fall under his jurisdiction. 
He was unwilling to be made a party to a Jewish prejudice, or the executioner 
of an alien code. Paul and his accusers as religionists stood on an equality in 
the eye of the law. His conduct is often reproached severely, as if he had been 
wholly indifferent on matters of religion. Whether he was so or not is not 
manifested here. He simply declined to interfere in such matters. In this 
he was right ; though he should surely have kept the peace, and prevented 
the attack on Sosthenes. The view of Meyer is probably correct, that he favored 
the accused. 

The Romans regarded the Jews with mingled feelings of curiosity, disgust, 
and contempt. Their orators and satirists heap scorn and reproach upon 
them for their low cunning, their squalor, mendicancy, turbulence, supersti- 
tion, cheatery and idleness. And they viewed Christianity in the light of a 
Jewish faction. 

“It took the Romans nearly two centuries to learn that Christianity was 
something infinitely more important than the Jewish sect, which they mistook 
it to be. It would have been better for them, and for the world, if they had 
tried to get rid of this disdain, and to learn wherein lay the secret power of a 
religion, whlch they could neither eradicate nor suppress. But while we regret 
this unphilosophie disregard, let us at least do justice to Roman impartiality, 
In Gallio, in Lysias, in Felix, in Festus, in the centurion Julius, even in Pilate, 
different as were their degrees of rectitude, we cannot but admire the trained 
judicial insight with which they at once saw through the subterranean injustice 
and virulent animosity of the Jews in bringing false charges against innocent 
men.’’ (Färrar.) 


NOTES. 361 


(r°) Having shorn his head. V. 18. 


It is a matter of dispute whether this shaving of the head refers to Paul or 
to Aquila. Meyer is decidedly of the opinion that it was Aquila who had the 
vow. He argues strenuously in favor of this view, but he very candidly gives 
a list of authorities on both sides, 

On the statement Plumptre writes thus: “ The grammatical structure of the 
Greek sentence makes it possible to refer the words to Aquila as well as St. 
Paul, but there is hardly the shadow of a doubt that the latter is meant.” 

Alford says: ‘“ There are, from verse 18 to 23—a section forming a distinct 
narrative, and complete in itself—no less than nine aorist participles, eight of 
which indisputably apply to Paul as the subject of the section; leaving it 
hardly open to question that xecpduevoc also must apply unto him.’ Taylor 
quotes this passage and concurs with it. On the other hand Bloomfield 
writes: “Al who were distinguished for knowledge of Greek and almost 
every editor of the N. T. have adopted the view that it refers to Aquila, which 
is supported by the ancient versions, and, as it invokes far more probability, 
and avoids the difficulties attendant on supposing Paul to be meant, it deserves 
the preference.’’ Howson also, in ‘‘The Life of Paul,’ says: “ Aquila had 
bound himself by one of those vows which the Jews often voluntarily took, 
even when in foreign countries,’ and ‘‘ had been for some time conspicuous, even 
among the Jews and Christians at Corinth, for the long hair, which denoted that 
he was under a peculiar religious restriction ; and before accompanying the 
apostle to Ephesus, laid aside the tokens of his vow.’’ He also in a note 
quotes Heinrichs: ‘‘ Preeferendum mihi videtur, quia constructio fluit facilior, 
propiusque fidem est, notitiam hanc, quae lereviter nonnisi et quasi per tran- 
seunam additur, de homine ignitione adjunctamesse.” Gloag thinks the view 
which refers the shaving of the head to Paul is the more correct. Since the 
time of Augustine, opinion on this question has been divided; among the 
scholars and commentators of the present day diversity of sentiment still ex- 
ists, nor can we expect unanimity in the future. In view of the whole discus- 
sion, we are disposed to agree with Meyer, that it was Aquila and not Paul 
who shaved his head. 


(6?) Apollos. V. 24.” 


Nothing is known of the previous history of Apollos, only that he was born 
in Alexandria, of Jewish parents. He was doubtless trained from his child- 
hood in the knowledge of the O. T. Scriptures; and thoroughly disciplined by 
the culture of the best schools in a city where literature, philosophy, and criti- 
cism excited the utmost intellectual activity, and which at that time was 
second only to Athens in influence over the current thought of the age. The 
philosophy of Alexandria exercised an important influence, both for good and 
evil, over primitive Christianity. 

Apollos was not only learned and mighty in the Scriptures, but he was en- 
dowed with a most fascinating and persuasive eloquence, and, both before and 
after his acquaintance with Paul, rendered good service to the cause of Christ, 
in Corinth and in Ephesus. He was with Paul when he wrote the first Epistle 
to the Corinthians, and Paul mentions him many years afterward, in his 


362 CHAP. XVIII.—NOTES. 


Epistle to Titus. Luther suggested the idea that he was the author of the 
Epistle to the Hebrews, and many have agreed with him. The term Aöytog, 
applied to Apollos, may mean skilled in history, learned, or eloquent, the last 
is best suited to the context ; but, in all its senses, the word was applicable to 
the distinguished Alexandrian. 


(m?) Baptism of John. V. 25. 


Besides his early Biblical and literary training, Apollos had probably been 
instructed by some disciple of John, if not by John himself, and had been im- 
bued with the spirit of the trumpet-toned preacher of the Jordan, and sought to 
lead men to repentance, and to the reception of the Messiah, who had already 
come, as he proved from the received Scriptures. He had been instructed 
in the way of the Lord--that is, the divine purpose to redeem Israel through 
the Messiah, whom he believed Jesus of Nazareth to be; for with great fervor 
of spirit and force of speech he taught accurately the things concerning the 
Lord Jesus, as far as he knew them. It is not to be supposed that Apollos was 
ignorant of the fact that Jesus was the Christ, the Lamb of God which taketh 
away the sin of the world; for this was the keynote of John’s ministry ; nor 
that he did not know anything about Christian baptism, but only that he did 
not distinguish between it and that of John. The disciples of John, 
who were numerous and scattered, may be divided into three classes: 
those, including a large majority, who became disciples of Christ; those, 
who formed a small sect of their own, holding that John was the Mes- 
siah ; and those who, being removed from Palestine, held just what John 
taught. To this last class Apollos and the twelve disciples at Ephesus be- 
longed. They had not yet heard of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, though 
they were personally led into the truth by Him. The pious couple, 
who had left Corinth with Paul, took the fervent, eloquent preacher 
to their home, and gave him more full and accurate instruction in the 
gospel of Christ, its distinctive doctrines, and, though no mention is made 
of the fact, Aquila in all probability baptized him. Meyer thinks he was not 
rebaptized ; but both Hackelt and Plumptre think it more probable that he was 
rebaptized, and we agree with them. 


CRITICAL REMARKS, 363 


CHAPTER XIX. . 


Vy. 1, 2. evpév] AB S, min. Copt. Vulg. Fulg. have eüpeiv, and then re (or dé) 
after eime. So Lachm. Tisch. But how easily might eipov, after 2ABeiv, be changed 
by transcribers into eöpeiv !— eimov, ver. 2, and 7p0s adrovs, ver. 3 (both deleted, 
after important witnesses, by Lachm. Tisch. Born.), have the character of an 

. addition for the sake of completion. — Ver. 4. uev] is wanting in A B D N, min. 
Vulg. Deleted by Lachm. and Born. The want of a corresponding dé ocea- 
sioned the omission.—Before ’Incoöv Elz. Scholz read Xpıoröv, which is deleted 
according to preponderating testimony. A usual addition, which was here 
particularly suggested by eis r. épy. — Ver. 7. dexadvo] Lachm. Born. read dddexa, 
it is true, accordingtoABDE NS, min., but it is a change to the more usual 
form. — Ver. 8. ra mepi] B D, min. vss. have repi. So Lachm. Tisch. Born. See 
on viii. 12. — Ver. 9. rıvös] is wanting in A B S, min. vss. Lachm. Tisch., but 
was, as apparently unnecessary, more easily omitted than inserted. — Ver. 10. 
After Kupiov Elz. has, against decisive testimony, ’In0o0, which Griesb. has de- 
leted. — Ver. 12. amogep.] recommended by Griesb., and adopted by Lachm. 
and Tisch., after A BE S, min. But Elz. Scholz, Born. read émigép. Occa- 
sioned by &ml r. dod. — ixnopeveoßa:) Elz. reads é&épyeobar an’ aitwr, against pre- 
ponderating evidence. The usual word for the going out of demons! and dz’ 
avr. was added from the preceding. — Ver. 13. kai] after rıv£s, is approved by 
Griesb, and adopted by Lachm. Tisch., according to A BE NS, min. Syr.; Elz. 
Scholz read azé, according to G H, min.; Born. reads &x, after D. Accordingly 
something, at all events, originally stood after twvés. But had azé or &x stood, 
no reason can be perceived why they should be meddled with; xai, on the 
other hand, might be found perplexing, and was sometimes omitted and some- 
times exchanged for dz6 or Ex. — öpki{o] So ABD E NS, min. Copt. Arm. Cas- 
siod. But Elz. has dpxifouev. Correction to suit the plurality of persons. — 
Ver, 14. rwes viot Sn. I. apy. éxta] Lachm. reads rıvos Sx. ’I. apy. éxta viol. 
Both have important evidence, and the latter is explained as a correction and 
transposition (Tisch. has rıves indeed, but follows the order of Lachm., also at- 
tested by S), the transcribers not knowing how to reconcile rıv&s with éxré, — 
oi] is deleted by Lachm., according to insufficient evidence. Superfluous in 
itself; and, according to the order of Lachm., it was very easily passed over 
after vioi. — Ver. 16. égadAdu.] A B &*, 104. Lachm. reads égaddu. Correctly ; 
the Recepta arises from the inattention of transcribers.—Before xaraxip. Elz. 
Scholz have xai, which is deleted according to predominant testimony. An 
insertion for the sake of connection. — augorépwr] Elz. has alröv, against AB 
D &, min. Theophyl. 2, and some vss.; aud., which is recommended by Griesb. 
and adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born., was objectionable, as before there was 
no mention of two. — Ver. 21. d:eAGév] Lachm. Born. read dısAdeiv, according to 
ADE. Resolution of the construction, by which «ai became necessary before 
mopeveoßaı, which, also, D has (so Born.). — Ver. 24. rapeiyero] Lachm. reads 
mapeixe, according to A*DE; yet D places ös before, and has previously jv 


364 CHAP TKI SL 


after ris (so Born.). The middle was less familiar to transcribers. — Ver. 25, 
Elz, Scholz have 7uov ; Lachm. Tisch. Born. read juiv, according toA BD E 8, 
min. Vulg. Copt.Sahid. Theophyl. 2. The latter is to be received on account 
of the preponderance of testimony, and because 7juav would more easily sug- 
gest itself to unskilful transcribers, — Ver. 26. a4%«] Lachm. Born. read dard 
kai, after A B G, min. vss. Chrys. Both suitable in meaning; but kai would 
more easily after ob uovov be mechanically inserted (comp. ver, 27) than omitted. 
— Ver. 27. Aoyıodjvaı, u£A2eıw] Lachm. Born. read ?oyıoßmoeraı, ueAAcsı, according 
to weighty evidence ; but certainly only an emendation of a construction not 
understood. — ryv weyad.] Lachm. reads 775 ueyaleıöraros, ABEN, min. Sahid. 
Correctly ; the genitive not being understood, or not having its meaning at- 
tended to, yielded to the more naturally occurring accusative. — Ver. 29. 647] is 
wanting in A B &, min. Vulg. Copt. Arm., and is deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 
An addition which easily suggested itself. — Ver. 33, mpoeßißacav]) Lachm. reads 
ovveßißacav, according to A B E NS, min.; Born. reads kareßi3., after D*. In 
this diversity cuve3i3. is indeed best attested by Codd., but yet is to be rejected 
as completely unsuitable. As, further, kareßiß. has only D* for it, the reading 
of the Recepta, which was glossed in a variety of ways, is to be retained. — Ver. 
34. £mıyvövres] Elz. has Erıyvövrov, against decisive evidence. A correction in 
point of style. — Ver. 35. dıßporos] Lachm. Tisch. read avAporwv, according to 
ABEN,min.vss. The Recepta came in mechanically.—After peyad. Elz. has 
Geas. Condemned by decisive testimony as an addition. — Ver. 37. 0eöv] Elz. 
reads Gedy, against decisive testimony.—Instead of iudv, Griesb. approved, and 
Lachm. and Born. read, 7uov, according to A D E** 8, min. vss. But with the 
important attestation which öuov also has, and as the change into 7uov was 
so naturally suggested by the context, the Recepta is to be defended, —- Ver. 39. 
mepl éTépwv] B, min. Cant. have wepatrépw. Preferred by Rinck, adopted by 
Lachm. and Tisch.; and correctly, as alterations easily presented themselves for 
a word not occurring elsewhere in the N. T. (E has rep Erepov), and which is 
hardly to be ascribed to the transcribers. — Ver, 40, After zepi od Griesb. and 
Matth. have adopted ot, which, however, has more considerable authorities 
against it than for it(A G H NS). Writing of the od twice, — repi before 775 
ovorp.is found in A B E N, min. vss.; it is, with Lachm., to be adopted, be- 
cause, being superfluous and cumbrous, it ran the risk of being omitted, but 
was not appropriate for insertion. 


Ver. 1. ’AroA%6] Concerning this form of the accusative, see Winer, p. 
61 (E. T. 72). — ra avwrepıra] the districts lying more inland from Ephesus, 
as Galatia and Phrygia, xviii, 23.1 The reading Theophylact, ra avaroAırd, 
is a correct gloss. A more precise definition of the course of the journey * 
through the regions of Hierapolis, Philadelphia, and Sardes, is not to be 
attempted. — uaßnräc] i.e. as no other definition is added, Christians. It 
is true that they were disciples of John,* who had been, like Apollos, in- 
structed and baptized by disciples of the Baptist,‘ but they had joined the 
fellowship of the Christians, and were by these regarded as fellow-disci- 
ples, seeing that they possessed some knowledge of the person and doc- 


1 Comp. Kypke, IT. 95. S ver. 2, 3. 
2 Böttger, Beitr. I. p. 30, and de Wette. 4 Comp. xviii. 25. 


DISCIPLES OF JOHN. 365 


trine of Jesus and a corresponding faith in Him, though of a very imper- 
fect and indefinite character, —as it were, misty and dawning ; therefore 
Paul himself also considered them as Christians, and he only learned from 
his conversation with them that they were merely disciples of John.! 
Heinrichs * thinks that they had received their instruction® and baptism of 
John from Apollos, and that Paul was also aware of this. But the very 
ignorance of these disciples can as little be reconciled with the energetic 
ministry of Apollos as with any already lengthened residence at Ephesus at 
all, where, under the influence of the Christians, and particularly of Aquila 
and Priscilla, they must have received more information concerning the 
mvevpa ay. Therefore it is most probable that they were strangers, who had 
but just come to Ephesus and had attached themselves to the Christians of 
that place. As disciples of John they are to be regarded as Jews, not as 
Gentiles, which ver. 2 contains nothing to necessitate.* — Observe, also, 
that the earlier keeping back of the apostle from Asia on the part of the 
Spirit° had now, after his labours thus far in Greece, obtained its object 
and was no longer operative. Of this Paul was conscious. Cod. D has a 
special address of the Spirit to this effect, —an interpolation which Borne- 
mann has adopted. 

Ver. 2. The want of the distinctively Christian life of the Spirit in 
these disciples must have surprised the apostle; he misses in their case 
those peculiar utterances of the Holy Spirit, commencing with Christian 
baptism, which were elsewhere observable.° Hence his question. — ei] 
The indirect form of conception lies at the foundation, as in i. 6. — rıorev- 
oavrec] after ye became believers, i.e. Christians, which Paul considered 
them to be.’— 422’ ob6é ei mv. dy. &. nKovo.] as the existence of the Holy Spirit 
at all cannot have been unknown to the men, because they were disciples of 
John and John’s baptism of water had its essertial correlate and intelligi- 
ble explanation in the very baptism of the Spirit—even apart from the O. 
T. training of these men, according to which they must at least have been 
aware that the Holy Spirit was something existing—£orıv, to be so accented, 
must necessarily be taken as adest, as in John vii. 39 : No, we have not even 
heard whether the Holy Spirit is there, already present on the earth. Ac- 
cordingly, they still remained ignorant whether that which John had 
announced, namely, that Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit, had 
already taken place, and thus the rveuua äyıov had become present. The 
supplements, dofév, Exxvvöuevov, and the like, give the sense, just as in John 
vii. 39, but are quite unnecessary. The view which it takes of existence 
generally has misled Olshausen to import the here inappropriate dogmatic 
assertion: that God still stood before their minds as a rigid, self-contained, 
immediate unity, without their knowing anything of the distinctive attributes 
of the Father, Son, and Spirit, necessarily conditioned by the nature of the 


1 verse 3. 5 xvi. 6. 
2 Comp. Wetstein, also Lange, II. p. 264. SU Cor Rt... 
3 xvili. 25, 26. 7 See on ver. 1. 


4 In opposition to Baumgarten, II. p. 3. 


366 CHAP. XIX., 4-7. 
% 


Spirit ; and, with Baumgarten, has given rise to the supposition that they 
were @entiles."—The question occurred to them as surprising.” 

Ver. 3. Eic ri] reference of the baptism : * unto what, then, as the object of 
faith and confession, to which you were referred, were ye baptized ? — oiv] 
accordingly, since the matter so stands, since ye have not even heard of the 
existence of the Holy Spirit. The presupposition in this eic ri oiv is, that 
they, baptized in the name of Christ, could not but have received the Holy 
Spirit. —eic 70 ’Iwavy. Bart.) in reference to the baptism administered by 
John, so that thus the baptism performed in our case was to be the baptism 
of John, in relation to which we were baptized. 

Ver. 4. M&v] See on i. 1. Instead of following it up by an apodosis, 
such as: “but Jesus is the coming One, on whom John by his bap- 
tism bound men to believe,” Paul already inserts this idea by rovr. gow eic 
r.’I. into the sentence begun by u&v, and, abandoning the „ev, entirely 
omits to continue the construction by dé. —éBarr. Bart, uerav.] he baptized, 
administered, a baptism which obliged to repentance. See Mark i. 4. On 
the combination of Barriga with a cognate noun.* — eic r. épy.] is with great 
emphasis prefixed to the iva.’ —iva mıor.] is to be understood purely in the 
sense of design ; saying to the people: that he administered a baptism of 
repentance, in order that they should believe on Him who was to come after 
him, i.e. on Jesus. This terse information concerning the connection of the 
baptism of John, which they had received, with Jesus, decided these disci- 
ples to receive Christian baptism. The determining element lay in roor’ 
Eorıv eic Tov ’Incoöv, Which Paul must have more precisely explained to 
them, and by which they were transplanted from their hitherto indistinct 
and non-living faith into the condition of a full jides explicita—from the 
morning dawn of faith to the bright daylight of the same. 

Ver. 5. Eis ro dvoua T. Kup, ’L.] on the name of the Lord Jesus, which they 
were to confess, namely, as that of the Messiah.* These disciples of John 
thus received—whether from Paul himself, or from a subordinate assistant, 
the text leaves undetermined’ — Christian baptism, for it had appeared that 
they had not yet received it. The Anabaptists have from the first wrongly 
appealed to this passage; for it simply represents the non-sufficiency of 
John’s baptism, in point of fact, for Christianity, and that purely in re- 
spect of the twelve persons, but does.not exhibit the insufficiency of the 
Christian baptism of infants. Many, moreover, of the orthodox,® in a 
controversial interest — both against the Roman Catholic doctrine of the 
distinction between the Johannean and the Christian baptism,° and also 
against the Anabaptists,—have wrongly attached ver. 5 to the address of the 
apostle: ** but after they had heard it they were baptized (by John), etc.’’ 





1 On adda, in the reply, see Klotz, ad Devar, 6 Comp. on Matt. xxviii. 19. 
p. 11 f. 7 But see for the latter view 1 Cor. i. 17; 
2 Baeumlein, Partik. p. 14. comp. Acts x. 48. 
3 Matt. iii. 11, xxviii. 19; Rom. vi. 3; 1 Cor. 8 Comp. Beza, Calixtus, Calovius, Suicer, 
1195/2) x11. 18.:1Gal.111.187. Glass, Buddeus, Wolf,and several ofthe older 
4 Comp. Luke vii. 29, xii. 50; Mark x. 38. commentators. 


5 Comp. on Gal. ii. 10 ; Eph. iii. 18. ® Trident. Sess. vii. Can. 1. 


BAPTISM OF JOHN’S DISCIPLES, 367 


But against this it may be urged, that John did not baptize in the name of 
Jesus, and that de, ver. 5, stands in no logical connection at all with uev, 
ver. 4. On the other hand, Calvin and others have maintained, against the 
Anabaptists, that ver. 5 is meant not of the baptism of water, but of the 
baptism of the Spirit, which ver. 6 only more precisely explains; but this 
shift is just another, quite as utterly unexegetical, error of dogmatic pre- 
“ supposition. We may add, that it may not be inferred from our passage 
that the disciples of John who passed over to Christianity were wniformly 
rebaptized ; for in the case of the apostles who passed over from John to 
Jesus, this certainly did not take place ;! and even as regards Apollos, the 
common opinion that he was baptized by Aguila is purely arbitrary, as in 
xviii. 26 his instruction in Christianity, and not his baptism, is narrated. 
Indeed, in the whole of the N. T., except this passage, there is no example 
of the rebaptism of a disciple of John. Hence: the baptism of the disciples of 
John who passed over to Christianity was not considered as absolutely necessary ; 
but it did or did not take place according as in the different cases, and in pro- 
portion to the differences of individuals, the desire of the persons concerned, and 
the opinion of the teachers on the matter determined. With those twelve, for 
example, Paul regarded it as conducive to his object and requisite that they 
should be baptized, in order to raise them to the elevation of Christian 
spiritual life; and therefore they were baptized, evidently according to 
their own wish and inclination, as is implied in drovoavreg 62 £ßarr., whilst 
Apollos, on the other hand, could dispense with rebaptism, seeing that he 
with his fervid spirit, following the references of John to Christ and_the 
instruction of his teachers, penetrated without any new baptismal consecra- 
tion into the pneumatic element of life. If, however, among the three 
thousand who were baptized at Pentecost? there were some of John’s disci- 
ples,—which is probable,—it was their desire to be baptized, and apostolic 
wisdom could not leave this unfulfilled. Accordingly, the opinion of 
Ziegler,* ‚that those twelve were rebaptized, because they had been baptized 
by some Gicciple of John not unto the épyouevoc, but unto John himself, and 
thus had not received the true Johannean baptism, is to be rejected. They 
did not, in fact, answer, in ver. 3, eic röv ’Ioavrnv ! 

Vv. 6,7. After the baptism the imposition of the hands of the apostle * be- 
came the vehicle of the reception of the rveöna üyıov on the part of the 
minds opened by the apostolic word. The Spirit descended upon them, 
and manifested Himself partly by their speaking with tongues,° and partly 
in prophetic inspiration.® These two must, according to the technical mode 
of reference to them in the apostolic church attested by 1 Cor. xii.—xiv., be 
distinguished, and not treated as equivalent, with van Hengel, who’ finds 
here merely in general an expression of the inspired praising aloud of God 
in Christ. The analogy of the phenomenon with what occurred in the 


1 John iv. 2. 8 See on xi..27. 

2 ji. 38, 41. 7 Comp. on chap. ii. 10. 

3 Theol. Abh. II. p. 162. 8 See his Gave d. talen, p. A ff. ; Trip, p. 
4 See on viii. 15, remark, 185, follows him. 


5 See on x. 46. 


368 CHAP. XIX., 8-12. 


history of Cornelius! serves Baur? for a handle to condemn the whole narra- 
tive as unhistorical, and to refer it to the set purpose of placing the Apostle 
Paul, by a new and telling proof of his apostolic dignity and efficiency, on 
a parallel with the Apostle Peter. The author had, in Baur’s view, seeing 
that the first yAoooaıg Aa?eiv, chap. li., is exhibited in the person of Jews, 
and the second, chap. x., in that of Gentiles, now chosen for the third a 
middle class, half-believers, like the Samaritans !* With all this presumed 
refinement of invention, it is yet singular that the author should not have 
carried out his parallelism of Paul with Peter even so far as to make the 
descent of the Holy Spirit and the speaking with tongues take place, as 
with Cornelius, before baptism, on the mere preaching of the apostle! Peo- 
ple themselves weave such fictions, and give forth the author of the book, 
which is thus criticised, as the ingenious weaver. — Ver. 7. A simple his- 
torical statement, not in order to represent the men “ as a new Israel.’ * 

Ver. 8. Ilewv] is not equivalent to dıdaskwv, but contains the result of 
d:adey, He convinced men’s minds concerning the kingdom of the Mes- 
siah.° 

Ver. 9. But when some were hardened and refused belief, he severed himself 
‚from them, from the synagogue, and separated the Christians, henceforth 
discoursing daily in the school of a certain Tyrannus. Tyrannus ® is usually 
considered ’ as a Gentile rhetorician, who had as a public sophist possessed 
a lecture-room, and is perhaps identical with the one described by Suidas : 
Tipavvog' vodıorys rept oraoewv Kk. diaipécewe Aöyov BiBAia déxa. But as the text 
does not indicate a transition of the apostle wholly to the Gentiles,* but 
merely a separation from the synagogue, and as in the new place of instruc- 
tion,’ ’Iovdaior, and these are named first, ver. 10, continued to hear him; 
as, in fine, Tyrannus, had he been a Gentile, would have to be conceived of 
as oeßöuevog Tov Heöv, like Justus, xviii. 7,—an essential point, which Luke ' 
would hardly have left unnoticed : the opinion of Hammond is to be pre- 
ferred, that Tyrannus is to be considered as a Jewish teacher who had a 
private synagogue, vn m'2." Paul with his Christians withdrew from 
the public synagogue to the private synagogue of Tyrannus, where he and 
his doctrine were more secure from public annoyance, The objection, that 
it would have been inconsistency to pass from the synagogue to a Rabinnical 
school,” is of no weight, as there were also Rabbins like Gamaliel, and Ty- 
rannus must be considered, at all events, as at least inclined to Christianity. 
—r. ö06v] see on ix. 2, xviii, 25. 


1 x, 44 ff. 

2J. p. 212 f., ed. 2 (with whom Zeller 
agrees ; and see earlier, Schneckenburger, p. 

3 See Schwegler, [56 ff. 

4$o Baumgarten, II. p.7, whom the very 
@aei ought to have preserved from this fancy. 

5 Comp. on reideıw with the mere accusative 
of the object (Plat. Pol. p. 304 A; Soph. 0. ©. 
1444), Valckenaer, ad Hur. Hipp. 1062. 

6The same name in Apollod. ii. 4. 5; 
Boeckh, Corp. Inser. 1732; 2 Macc. iv. 40; 
Joseph. Anti. xvi. 10. 3, Bell. i, 26. 3; and 


among the Rabbis D)3)M, see Drusius in 
loc. [Ewald, p. 516. 

TAs by Lange and Baumgarten, comp. 

8 See, on theother hand, xviii. 6, 7, xüi. 
46. [ete. 

9 axoAn, a teaching-room, often in Plutarch, 

10 Comp. xviii. 7. 

11 In Beth Midrasch docuerunt traditiones 
atque aerum expositiones,’’ Badyl. Berac. f. 
17.1; see Lightf. ad Matth. p. 258 f. ; Vitrin- 
ga, Synag. p. 137. 

12 Baumgarten. 


PAUL IN EPHESUS. 369 


Ver. 10. ’Eri érn dvo] for two years." The three months, ver. 8, are to be 
reckoned in addition to this for the whole residence at Ephesus. This 
statement of the time is not at variance with xx. 31, if only we take the 
dıeria in our passage, and the rpıeria in xx. 31, not as documentarily strict, 
but as approximate statements.” There is not, therefore, sufficient reason 
to suppose, nor is there any hint in the narrative, that we are to reckon the 
rn Övo as not extending further than ver. 20.° — Gore mävras «.r.}.] a hyper- 
bolical expression. In Ephesus, flourishing by commerce and art, with its 
famous temple of Diana and festivals,* strangers were continually coming 
and going from all parts of Asia Minor, Jews and Gentiles, the latter par- 
ticularly for the sake of worship. The sensation which Paul made excited 
very many to hear him; a great sphere of labour was opened up to him, 1 
Cor. xvi. 9. —"EAAnvac] comprehends here both proselytes of the gate and 
complete Gentiles.° The private school, which Tyrannus had granted to 
Paul, was made accessible by the latter also to the Gentiles, which could 
not have been the case with a public synagogue. 

Vv. 11, 12. Oo ra¢ rvyoic.| not the usual, i.e. distinguished, not to be com- 
pared with those of the Jewish exorcists.° The opposite : jxpai kai ai 
Tvyovoa mpafeıc.” On rvyör, in the sense of vulgaris, see generally, Vigerus, 
ed. Hermann, p. 364 ; and on the very frequent connection by way of Jitotes 
with ot, see Wetstein in loc.” —öore kai x.7.A.] so that also, among other 
things, towels and aprons were brought to the sick from his skin, and thereby 
the ailments were removed from them, etc. — oıuıkivdtov, not preserved else- 
where, the Latin semieinetium, is explained either as a handkerchief,® or 
usually as an apron, in favour of which is the etymology, and Martial, Zpigr. 
xiv. 151. Very probably it was a linen apron ® which workmen or waiters !! 
wore after laying aside their upper garment, and which, when they had it 
on, they likewise used for the purpose remarked by Oecumenius. — arö rov 
xpwröc avtov| so that they had just been used by him and been in contact 
with his skin. Luke, who also here '” distinguishes the ordinary sick from 
the possessed, represents the healing of the former and the deliverance of 
the latter as an effect, which was brought about by the cloths laid on 
them ; for öore down to éxzop. forms together the description of a peculiar 
kind of those unusual miraculous dvvausıc. Purely historical criticism, inde- 
pendent of arbitrary premises laid down d priori, has nothing to assail in 
this view, as the healing power of the apostle, analogous to the miraculous 
power of Jesus, might through his will be transmitted by means of cloths 
requested from him to the suffering person, and received by means of the faith 
of the latter. The truth of the occurrence stands on the same footing with 


1 As ver. 8, xviii. 20, and frequently. ® Oecumenius Ev tats xepoi KaTéxovor.. . 


2 Comp. Anger, de temp. rat. p. 59. mpos TO amonarreodaı Tas VypoTHTas TOD mpo- 
3 Schrader, Wieseler, and others. oWTovV, olov LöpWras, mrvedov, Öakpvov K. TA 
4’Edgeoia, Locella, ad Xen. Eph. p. 132. öwora, comp. Theophylact and Suicer, Thes. 
5 Comp. on xi. %. II. p. 959. 

6 Ver. 13. Comp. xxviii. 2. 10 audorepa Arvoerdy eior, Schol. ap. Matth. 
7 Polyb. i. 25. 6. 11 Pignor, de serv. p. xxv. 


8 Valckenaer, p. 559 f.; from Philo, Loes- 12 Comp. Luke iv. 40 f. al. 
ner, p. 219. Comp. 2 Macc. ili. 7. 


370 CHAR. XIX, 13-19. 


the N. T. miraculous cures in general, which took place through the will 
of the worker of miracles, partly with and partly without sensible trans- 
mission. By relegating the matter from the historical domain of miracles, 
which is yet undoubtedly to be recognized in the working of Paul,! to the 
sphere of legends as to relics,” with comparison of v. 15, or to that ‘‘ of the 
servants’ rooms and houses behind,’’* the narrative of our passage is easily 
dismissed, but not got rid of, although a more special embellishment of it 
by the importunity of those seeking help, and by the pouring out of the sweat 
of the apostle as he worked,‘ of which the text indicates nothing, is to be 
set aside. 

Ver. 13. But some, also, of the itinerant Jewish demon-exorcisers — sor- 
cerers, who, for the healing of demoniacs, used secret arts derived from 
Solomon, and charms °— undertook,° in expectation of greater results than 
their own hitherto had been, and provoked by the effects which Paul pro- 
duced by the utterance of the name of Jesus, to use this formula with the 
demoniacs : J conjure you to come out, ye evil spirits,’ by Jesus, who, 
besides, will punish you, whom Paul announces. — éxi rovg &y.] denotes the 
local direction : towards the possessed, not, as Kuinoel proposes, on account of 
the possessed, perhaps with a design towards, of the direction of the will, 
in which case the vivid form of the representation is entirely overlooked. 
— ra mvebu. Ta mov.) are the demons concerned, then and there to be expelled. 
— röv ’Inoovv.]° Equivalent to 76 övöuarı tov ’I., 3 Esdr. 1. 48. 

Ver. 14. ’Apyep.] Whether he was a former head of one of the twenty- 
four priestly classes, or a past de facto high priest, remains wndecided, as 
this Skeuas — according to A: Skeujas, according to Ewald, perhaps 
m223% — is otherwise entirely unknown. —rivec . . . éxré] is by many, 
including Kuinoel and Olshausen, taken as some seven, i.e., about seven ; but 
then Luke would have placed the pronoun close to the numeral, either 
before or after it;’ and the merely approximate expression would not be in 
keeping with the significance of the number seven. The correct mode of 
taking it is: but there were certain sons of Skeuas, a Jewish high priest, and 
indeed seven, who did this. The number, not thought of at the very begin- 
ning, instead of rıvec, is introduced afterwards. Baur!’ converts the sons 
into disciples, without any ground whatever in the text. 

Ver. 15. But how entirely did that éreyeipyoav fail of success ın the very 
first instance of its application! Bengel well remarks on ver. 13: “Si 
semel successisset, saepius ausuri fuerant.’’ —7d mveüua] the demon, who had 
taken possession of the individual consciousness in the man,—By röv’Inoovv 
. . . Eriorauaı he recognises the power of Jesus and of the apostle over 
him ; by dueic dé rivec, what sort of men! &or& he shows his contempt for the 
presumption of his powerless—not empowered by Jesus and Paul—oppo- 
nents. üöueic is with depreciating emphasis placed first. 





1 Rom. xv. 19 ; 2 Cor. xii, 12. 6 erexeip., see on Luke i. 1. 

2 Baur, Zeller. ? Ver. 15. 

3 Hausrath. 8 Comp. Mark v. 7; 1 Thess. v. 27. 

4 Baumgarten. » xxiii. 23; Thuc. vii. 34.4, exra rwes, and 


5 See Joseph. Antt. viü. 2.5, Bell. Jud. i. 1. see Kühner, § 633. 5 ; Krüger, § li. 16. 4. 
2; Matt. xii. 27. 10], p. 215, ed. 2. 


SONS OF SCEVA. srl 

Ver. 16. ’Esaröuevoc (see the critical remarks) éx’ airove «.r.A.] having 
leaped upon tiem, after overpowering both he so prevailed against them, that, etc. 
The mode of representation is not exact, as we only see from ay@ortépwv that 
here of those seven but two were active, whom Luke has already conceived 
to himself in aurovc. According to Ewald, augor. is neuter ; on both sides, 
i.e. from above and from below. This would be ar’ aydotépwr, rap’ audor., 
augor£pn, ausor&pwdev. — yvuvovc] whether entirely naked, or merely divested 
of their upper clothing,! remains an undecided point. 

Vv. 17, 18. The first impression of this signal miscarriage of that appli- 
cation of the name of Jesus was in the case of the Ephesian multitude 
naturally fear, dread* on account of its extraordinary nature ;* and then 
followed universal praise of that name.* And many who, through this event 
now, were believers (rav merıcr.’) came, to Paul, and confessed and made known, 
an exhaustive description, their deeds. This open confession ® of their pre- 
vious practices, which had been entirely alien and opposed to the faith in 
Christ, was the commencement of their new life of faith. In woAoi and räs 
mpaé. aur. the converted sorcerers and their evil tricks are meant to be in- 
cluded, but not they only ;7 for it is not till ver. 19 that these exclusively 
are treated of. As to zpd£ere in a bad sense, comp, on Rom. viii. 13. 

Ver. 19. On repiepyoc, often joined in Greek writers with droroc, uäaraıog, 
avénroc, and the like, male sedulus, curiosus, and on ra mepiepya, what is useless, 
especially employed of the practices of sorcerers, see Kypke° and Wet- 
stein. — The article here denotes that which is known from the context. 
—ra¢ BiBAovc] in which the magical arts were described, and the formulae 
were contained. Such formulae of exorcism, carried on slips as amulets, 
proceeded in large quantities from the sorcerers at Ephesus ; hence the ex- 
pression ’Egeoia ypaupara. °— cvveforcav| The sorcerers themselves reckoned 
up the prices, which, indeed, others could not do. From this is partly ex- 
plained the greatness of the sum. — cip. apy. pup. mevre] they found™ in silver 
money fifty thousand, namely, drachmae.” As the word is not dpyvpiov, but 
apyupiov (comp. Dem. 949.1: rproxırlac Eyrarscac Apyvpiov Öpaxuäc) ; as Luke 
did not write for a Hebrew, and as the scene of the transaction was a 
Greek eity, the opinion of Grotius, Hammond, and Drusius, that shekels are 
meant, is to be rejected. The statement of a sum, without naming the 
sort of money of the drachmae, was usual with the Greeks.'” An Attic 


1 See on John xxi. 7. 

2 See on ii. 43. 

3 On Emerege doßos, comp. Luke i. 12. 

4 Comp. Luke vil. 16. 

5 This rendering of tay memor. is justified 
by eueyaAuvero K.r.A., ver. 17. Others, as 


Luther (see his gloss) has misunderstood the 
verse. 
8 €Eouod., see on Matt. iii. 6. 
7 In opposition to Heinrichs and Olshausen. 
Sie p.95: [B. 
9 Comp. reptepyagecOar, Plat. Apol. S. p. 19 


Baumgarten, understand those who had al- 
ready previously been believers, but who had 
not. yet arrived at such a confession. This, 
however, is not reconcilable with keravora as 
the necessary moral condition of faith and 
baptism, which condition must have at an 
earlier period been fulfilled by those who had 
already at an earlier time become believers. 


10 See Wetstein and Grotius én loc.; Valcke- 
naer. Schol. p. 564; Hermann, gottesd. Alterth. 
§ xlii. 17. 

11 Got out as the sum, see Raphel in loc. 

12 The silver drachma stands, as is well 
known, to the gold drachma in the proportion 
of 10 to 1. [Bernhardy, p. 187. 

13 See Bos, Zllips., ed. Schaefer, p. 119 f.5 


372 CHAP, XIX., 20-27. 


drachma, = 6 oboli, is about 24 kreuzers, accordingly the sum is about 20,- 
000 Rhenish gulden.1—Baur, according to his presupposition, cannot but 
reject the whole history of the demoniac, etc., as unhistorical ; he holds 
even the judgment in ver. 20 as itself unworthy of the associates of an 
apostle ; and the following history, vv. 21-40, appears to him only to have 
arisen through an @ priori abstraction, the author wishing to give as splen- 
did a picture as possible of the labours of Paul at Ephesus. Zeller declares 
himself more neutrally, yet as suspecting the narrative (p. 265), as does also 
Hausrath, p. 86 f. 

Ver. 20. So (so much) with power (par force) grew, in external diffusion,” 
and displayed itself powerful, in the production of great effects, the doctrine 
of the Lord. —xata xparoc].* The reference of kpäros to the power of 
Christ * has occasioned the order rov Kupiov 6 Adyoc.* 

Vv. 21, 22. Taira] these things hitherto reported from Ephesus.* Schra- 
der” would strangely refer it to the entire past labours of Paul, even in- 
cluding what is not related by Luke, An arbitrary device in favour of his 
hypothesis, that after ver. 20 a great journey to Macedonia, Corinth, Crete, 
etc., occurred.® — Gero év ro mveu.] he determined in his spirit, he resolved.° 
— iv Maxed. x. ’Ay.] See on xviii. 12. — mopeveodat eis "Iepovo.] The special 
object of the journey is known from 1 Cor. xvi. 1 ff.; 2 Cor. viii.; Rom. 
xv. 25 ff. The non-mention of this matter of the collection is so much the 
less to be set down to the account of a conciliatory design of the book — 
as if it made the apostle turn his eyes toward Jerusalem on account of the 
celebration of the festival !'—since the very aim of the collection would have 
well suited that alleged tendency. !’— dei] in the consciousness of the divine 
determination, which is confirmed by xxiii. 11. From this consciousness is 
explained his earnest assurance, Rom. i. 10 ff. And towards Rome now 
goes the whole further development '? of his endeavours and of his destiny. 
He was actually to see Rome, but only after the lapse of years and as a 
prisoner. —’Epaorov] 2 Tim. iv. 20. Otherwise unknown and different 
from the person mentioned in Rom, xvi. 23.— &rioxe xpövov] he kept him- 
self, remained, behind for a time. — eis r. ’Aciay] does not stand for &v rH 
’Ao., in opposition to Grotius, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and many others, but: it 
denotes the direction in which this keeping back took place, toward Asia, 
where he was.'® Considering the frequency of this construction !# gener- 
ally, and in the N. T.,!" it is not to be rendered, with Winer : for Asia, in 
order to labour there. 


1 About £1875, or $9000. 11 Sexe, 16 RVs Le 

2 vi. 7, xii. 24. 12 Comp. 2 Cor. ix. 12 ff.; see Lekebusch, p. 

$See Valckenaer, p. 565; Bernhardy, p. 280. How wndesignedly the work of the col- 
241; Bornemann, ad Xen. Cyr. i. 4. 23. lection remained here unmentioned, is evi- 

4 Eph. i. 19. [B &*. dent from xxiv. 17. [85 ff. 

5 Lachmann and Tischendorf, following A 13 Compare Klostermann, Vindiciae Luc. p. 

8 vv. 1-19. 14 See examples in Wetstein, and from Philo 

7 Der Apostel Paulus, II. p. 85 f. in Loesner, p. 219. 

8 See, on the contrary, Anger, de temp. rat. 15 Comp. the well-known es S0movs neverv, 
p. 64 ff. Soph. Aj. 80. 

® Comp. on v. 4. 16 Comp. xviii. 21. 


10 Schneckenburger, p. 67; Zeller, p. 267. 17 Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 287 (E. T. 335). 


MANY CONVERTED. 973 


Ver. 24. The silver-beater (apyvporöroc) Demetrius had a manufactory, in 
which little silver temples (asıdpuuara) representing the splendid! temple 
of Diana? with the statue of the goddess, og kPBdpia puxpa,* were made, 
These miniature temples must have found great sale, partly among Ephe- 
sians, partly among strangers, as it was a general custom to carry such min- 
iature shrines as amulets with them in journeys, and to place them in their 
houses ;* and particularly as the “Apreuic ’Egecia was such a universally 
venerated object of worship.* We are not to think of coins with the im- 
pression of the temple, in opposition to Beza, Scaliger, Piscator, Valck- 
enaer, as the naming of coins after the figure impressed on them ® is only 
known in reference to living creatures ; nor can the existence of such coins 
with the impress of the Ephesian temple be historically proved. 

Vv. 25, 26. Demetrius assembled not only the artisans (otc) who worked 
for him, but also the other workmen who were occupied in similar industrial 
occupations (ra rocadra). Bengel correctly remarks: ‘‘ Alii erant reyvira, 
artifices nobiliores, alii épydrac operaril.’? — od uövov . . . add] without kai, 
like the Latin non modo. . . sed, contains a climax.’ — peréor.] namely, from 
the worship of the gods. — örı ov eict Oeoi] The people identified the stat- 
ues of the gods with the gods themselves, or at least believed that the 
numen of the divinity filled them.” Observe the order of the words, accor- 
dant with their emphasis, marked also by a dislocation in ver. 26, and the 
scornful and bitter 6 Mavaog obtoc : that Paul there ! — deoi is predicate. How 
Paul looked on the heathen gods, may be seen at 1 Cor. viü. 4, x. 20. The 
gods, = images, were to him of course only the work of men, without any 
reality of that which they were intended to represent. Comp. xvii. 29. 

Ver. 27. And not only this matter,” this point, namely, our lucrative trade, 
is in danger for us of coming into contempt, but also’ the temple of the great 
goddess Artemis is in danger of being regarded as nothing, and there will also, 
he added, be brought down the majesty of her, whom, ete. — ijuiv] dative of 
reference, z.e. here incommodi. — eic area. 870.) i.e. to come intodis credit ; 
äreAeyuöc is not preserved elsewhere ; but comp. éAeyuéc, frequent in the 
LXX. and Apocr. — r7¢ peyaAnc| a habitually employed epithet, as of other 
gods, so particularly of the Ephesian Artemis." With péAdrecv the oratio 
recta passes into the oratio obliqua.'* — ré is and, simply annexing ; xai is also, 


1 Callimach. Hymn. in Dian. 248. Isoer. Exec. IX. ; Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 317 
2 See concerning this temple, burned by (E. T. 369). 
Herostratus on the nightin which Alexander 8 See Elsner, Odss. p. 453 ff. ; Wolf, Cur. ; 
the Great was born, and afterwards built with Hermann, gottesd. Alterth. § xviii. 19. 
greater magnificence, Hirt, d. Temp. d. Diana 9 epos, see on Col. ii. 16. 
2. Ephes., Berlin 1809. 10 “Eficax sermo, quem utilitas et super- 
3 Chrysostom. stitio acuit,'’ Bengel. Comp. xvi. 19. 
4Dio Cass. xxxix. 20; Diod. Sic. i. 15; 11 Xen. Hph.i. 11; Alberti, Obss. p. 259. 
Amm. Marc. xxii. 13; Dougt. Anal. IT. p. 91. 12 Still meAAcır may also be governed by 


5 Creuzer, Symbol. Il. p. 176 ff.; Preller, kıvöuv. nuiv. But in that case peAdew would 
Mythol. I. p. 196 ff.; Hermann, gottesd. itself simply appear very unnecessary, and the 
Alterth. § \xvi. 4, ixviii. 39. [an loc. passage would more fittingly after the preced- 

6 Boves, puellae, pulli, testudines; see Beza ing be continued: xadaıpeiodaı te Kai K.T.A, 

"See Maetzn. ad Antiph. p. 129 ; Bremi, ad See Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 330 (E. T. 385). 


874 CHAP. XIX., 28-33. 


climactic: ‘‘destructumgue etiam iri majestatem,’’ etc.! — rjc peyaderdtnto¢ 
(see the critical remarks) is to be taken partitively, as if ri stood with it; 
there will be brought down something of her majesty.” Nothing of this 
magnificence will they sacrifice. On xadapeiv of the lowering of the honour 
of one, comp. Herodian. iii. 3. 4, vil. 9. 24. gv... oéBera] again the 
direct form of address. See on such mixing of direct and indirect ele- 
ments, Kuhner.* The relative applies to aurzc. 

Vv. 28, 29. MeyaAn 7 "Apr. ’Eg.] An enthusiastic outcry for the preserva- 
tion of the endangered, and yet so lucrative! majesty of the goddess. — 
&puyoav| namely, those who ran together along with Demetrius and his 
companions. — öuodvuadöv] here also: with one mind, in opposition to Dey- 
ling, Krebs, Loesner, and others, who think that, on account of ver. 82, it 
must be rendered simul; for they were at one on the point, that in the 
theatre something in general must be determined on against Paul and his 
companions for the defence of the honour of the goddess,* although specially 
the most might not know rivog évexev ovveAnrvbeccav.* — It is well known that 
the theatre was used for the despatch of public transactions and for popular 
assemblies, even for such as were tumultuary.° Consequently the more 
easy it is to understand, why the vehement crowd poured itself into the 
great theatre.” — ovvapräc.] First, they drew along with them the two 
fellow-travellers (cuvexd.) of the apostle, and then rushed into the theatre. 
But it may also be conceived as simultaneous ; while they carried along with 
them, they rushed, etc. Whether they fetched these two men from their 
lodgings, or encountered them in the streets, cannot be determined. — 
Caius is otherwise unknown, and is not identical with the Caius mentioned 
in xx. 4,° or with the one mentioned in Rom. xvi. 23; 1 Cor. i. 15. — 
"Apiorapy.] See xx. 4, xxvii. 2; Col. iv. 10; Philem. 24. 

Vv. 30, 31. IIai%ov] whom doubtless the rioters had not found present at 
his usual place of abode. ‘‘ Nulla militaris audacia par huie fortitudini,’’ 
Bengel. — eic 7. dyuov] among the people that ran together into the theatre.* 
6 Öjuoc is also among Greek writers very often the multitude.’ Contrary to 
the whole course of proceeding as narrated, Otto’ understands a formal 
assembly of the people, of which we are not to think even in the case of 
éxkAjoia, ver. 32.—The ten presidents of sacred rites as well as of the 
public games in proconsular Asia were called 'Ac:apyai, corresponding to 
whom in other provinces were the Tatarapyai, Bıßvviapxat, Suprapyai x-T.A. 
They had to celebrate, at their own expense, these games in honour of the 
gods and of the emperor. Each city annually, about the time of the 
autumnal equinox, delegated one of its citizens, and these collective dele- 


1Comp. xxi. 28; Buttmann, p. 309 (E.T. 
860). 

2 Comp. Xen. Hellen. iv. 4. 13: trav teecxav 
xaßekeiv, also ii. 2. 11. 

8 Ad Xen. Anab.i.3.14; Dissen, ad Dem. 
de cor. p. 203. 

“Ver. 34. 

& Ver. 32. [alterth. § 128. 9. 

© See Wetstein in Zloc.; Hermann, Staas- 


7It was one of the largest, as its ruins 
show. See Ottfr. Müller, Archäol. d. Kunst, 
p. 391. 

® See in loc. 

® Ver. 31. 

10 Nem. 383. 5 ; Diod. Sic. xvi. 84, plebs, vul- 
gus. See Sturz, Lew. Xen I. p. 665; Nägels- 
bach on the /Ziad, p 277, ed. 3. 

1 Pastoralbr. p 103. 


TUMULT RAISED BY DEMETRIUS. 375 


gates then elected the ten. It was natural that one of these—perhaps 
chosen by the proconsul—should preside, and hence may be explained the 
remark in Eusebius, 77. E. iv. 15, that Polycarp was executed under the 
Asiarch Philip. But the inference from our passage is historically inde- 
monstrable, that only one was really Asiarch, and that the pluial is to be 
explained from the fact that the other nine, but particularly the retired 
Asiarchs, like the past high priests of the Jews, bore the title,! which is 
in itself improbable on account of the enormous expense which in that 
case would have been laid on one.?— py dovvae éavtév] apprehension of 
danger to life. On the expression with eic of a dangerous locality, comp. 
Polyb. v. 14. 9. : 
Vy. 32, 33. Oiv] joins on, by way of inference, the description of the 
concourse, ver. 29, interrupted by vv. 30 and 381.—dzo . . . dado]? 
The following ri might have been left out,* but it is only wanting in D.°— 
7 éxkAnoia| It was no évvouog éxxA., ver. 39, and accordingly, no legal popular 
assembly, neither an ordinary one (vöwınoc), nor an extraordinary (ci7«2A7T0c), 
but simply an assemblage of the people, who had flocked together of their 
own accord,—a concio plebis ealex et abusiva. — ovykexvu.] confused, in an 
uproar.° It lacked all order, guidance, self-restraint, discipline, ete. — 
mpoeß. AAEE. mpoßaAA. ait. 7. ’Iovd.] a vivid description of its tumultuary 
character. The Jews shoved (pushed) him forward from behind (xpofara.), 
and others, standing in front, brought or drew him out of the crowd." 
Grotius, Wetstein, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and others take mpoßaAreı as to pro- 
pose,* but this does not at ail suffice for the lively picture of the tumult. 
Alexander, otherwise entirely unknown, was certainly a Christian, since 
only to such a one is the subsequent aroAoyeicda: suitable, not a Jew.° He 
is commonly, but arbitrarily, especially considering the frequency of the 
name, considered as identical with the Alexander mentioned in 1 A brbens a. 
20, 2 Tim. iv. 14, in which case it is in its turn presupposed that the name 
occurring at those two passages denotes one person. Such completely 
indemonstrable assumptions cannot serve to prove the genuineness and 
time of the composition of the Epistles to Timothy, in opposition to Otto. 
The Alexander in our passage had, in the Christian interest, mixed among 
the crowd, and was pushed forward by the malicious Jews that he might 
make a public address and, if possible, become a sacrifice to the fury of the 
multitude. If we hold him to be a non-Christian Jew, which does not 
result from ver. 34, it is to be supposed that the Jews would be afraid that, 
on this occasion, they also might be attacked, and therefore pushed for- 
ward Alexander, an eloquent man and hostile to Paul, that he might main- 





1 Salmasius, Valesius, Tillemont, Harduin, ayopav ouverpexev aAAwv GAda Kexpayotwr, Plat. 


and Deyling. Charm. p. 153 D : npwrwv de aAAos aAAO. 
2 See generally, Spanheim, de usu et praest. 4 Kühner, § 836. note 5. 
num. II. p. 694: van Dale, Dissertt. ad antiq. 5 Bornemann. 
et. marmor. p. 273 ff. ; Winer, Realw. 1. p. 97 6 Comp. ver. 25. 
f.; Babington in Numism. Chronicle, 1866, 7 Er T. OxAOV mpoeß. 
p. 9 ff. Comp. also Jacobs, ad Anthol. XII. 8 See Xen. Anab. vi.1. 2%, vi. 2.6; Dem. 
p. 313. 519. 16; Kypke, II. p. 101 f. 


3 Comp. Charit.i.5: 6 Sjmos amas eis thy 9 Beza, Grotius, Ewald, and others. 


376 CHAP. XIX., 34-40. 


‚ 


tain the innocence of the Jews to the destruction of the Christians. But 
Luke must have called attention to such a connection,’ and that the more 
as the simple aroAoyeiodaı, to make a defence, points quite naturally to the 
accusation of the Christians referred to. — karao. r. x.] moving his hand up 
and down,? for a sign that he wished to speak. — ro due | before the people.“ 
— djuoc is as in ver. 30, and the aro/oyeıodar cannot therefore be meant to 
be a defence of the Jews * and of the 6 yAoc.° 

Vv. 84, 35. “Ore ’Iovdaiöc &orı] Alexander was a Jewish Christian ; but his 
Christian position was either unknown to the mob, or they would listen to 
nothing at all from one belonging to the Jewish nation as the hereditary 
enemy of the worship of the gods. — imıyvövres] Nominative participle, hav- 
ing reference to the logical subject.°— kxataoreiiac| after he had quieted.’ — 
The ypaypyarebc, who had come up in the meantime, perhaps being sent for, 
is the city-secretary,* to whose office belonged the superintendence of the 
archives, the drawing up of official decrees, and the reading of them in the 
assemblies of the people.’ —ric yap «.r.A.] who is there then, ete. With yap 
the speaker glances back on his efforts to calm them as completely justified, 
The question in- 
troduced with yap therefore states the motive of the xataoreiAac.° Thus viv- 
idly does the question fit into the poistion of affairs. — rHv ’Edeciov mölıv] 
with patriotic emphasis. — On vewxépoc, properly temple-sweeper, temple-keep- 
er,'"as an honourable epithet of cities, particularly in Asia, in which the 
temple-service of a divinity or of a deified ruler has its principal seat.? — 7d 
diomertc] that which fell from Zeus. That this was the dyadya fallen from 
heaven,'* was obvious of itself. The image of Artemis in the temple of 
Ephesus—according to Vitruvius, ii. 9, of cedar ; according to Plin. xvi. 40, 
of the wood of the vine ; according to Xen. Anab. v. 3. 12, of gold, or at 
least gilt ; and according to others of ebony—was given out as such.“ On 
the figure of the image,! see Creuzer, Symbol. II. p. 176 ff. It represented the 
goddess with many breasts.!% According to our passage it must have been 
rescued at the burning of Herostratus, at least according to general opinion. 


since there is certainly no one who does not know, etc. 


1 Otto, p. 108, makes up the scene more 
artificially, and that so as to make Alexander 
even the soul and the secret spring of the 
whole uproar. According to Hausrata, the 
author gives designedly only a fi agmentary 
account of the Jewish-Christian Alexander, 
because the conduct of the Jewish-Christians 
at that time did not suit the concilatory object 
of his book. 

2 Comp. xii. 17, xiii. 16, xxi. 40, where, how- 
ever, the verb is joined with the dative, which, 
therefore, also D, al. (Bornemann) have here. 

3 Herod. vii. 161; Plat. Prot. p. 359 A; 
Lucian. Gall. 3. See Bernhardy, p. 79, 

4 Bengel, Ewald. 

5 Otto. 

® See Winer, p. 528 (E. T. 710) ; Buttmann, 
neut. Gr. p. 256 (E. T. 298). 


7 Plut. Mor. p. 207 E; Joseph. Antt. xiv. 9 
iso sae 

8 Thuc. vii. 19, 6 ypauparevs 6 Tis moAews. 

? See van Dale, l.c., p. 423 f.; Hermann, 
Staatsalterth. § 127. 2u, 147. 6. 

!oComp. Nägelsbach on the Iliad, p. 59, 
ed. 3. [A-C. 

11 Xen. Anab. v. 8. 6; Plat. Zeyg. 6, p. 759 

12 See van Dale, /.c., p. 300 ff.; Valckenaer, 
p. 570 f.; Krause, de civit. neocoris, Hal. 1844 ; 
Hermann, gottesd. Alterth. § 12. 7. 

13 Eur. Iph. T. 977 ; Herodian, i. 11. 2. 

14 See Spanheim, ad Callim. in Dian. 238; 
Wetstein ön Joc. 

15 With enigmatical words on forehead 
girdle, and feet; see upon it Ewald, Jahrb., 
po 

16 Multimammiam, Jerome. 


TUMULT QUELLED BY THE TOWN CLERK. 377 

Ver. 37. Täp] justifies the expression used, xpomeréc, rashly, without con- 
sideration. 

Ver. 38. Ov] accordingly, since these men are neither robbers of temples,, 
etc. On éyew mpög tiva Adyov, an utterance, i.e. complaint, see examples in 
Kypke, I. p. 103. — ayopaioı] by Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and 
Bornemann, following Suidas, accented ayöparoı,! are judicial assemblies ; in 
construing it, civodo: is to be conceived as supplied.?— kai avbiraro eiow] 
and there are proconsuls. The plural is here also? the plural indefinite of 
the category. Arbitrarily Calvin and Grotius hold that the proconsul and 
his legate are meant. Bengel correctly says: ‘‘de eo quod nunquam non 
esse soleat.”’ 

Vv. 39, 40. But if you desire anything further thereupon, beyond matters 
of private law, it will be discussed, cleared up, in the lawful assembly of the 
veople* On repatépw see the critical remarks. '—xat yap kıvdww.] for we 
even run the risk of being charged with tumult—ordcewe : genitive of accusa- 
tion—on account of this day. yap gives the reason why the speaker in the 
latter case, ver. 39, has relegated the matter to the &vvouoc ExkAno. tHe 
onuepov is not to be connected with oraoewc.° — umdevöc alriov . raurnc] 
there being no reason, on the ground of which we shall be in a position to give 
account of this concourse. und, airiov, taken as masculine,’ would less accord 
with the prudence of the speaker, who with wise forbearance clothes the 
threatening in a form embracing others, including his own responsibility.— 
Very wisely, on the whole, has the politically adroit man of business, in the 
first instance, by way of capitatio benevolentiae praised the Ephesian worship 
of Diana in its unendangered world-wide fame; then from this inferred 
the unseemliness of such a hasty proceeding ; further, pointed Demetrius 
and his companions to the legal form of procedure in their case; and 
finally, put on the people the lasting curb of the fear of Roman punish- 
ment.§ — xai ravra einov x.7.A.| oürwc Eoßeoe Tov ÜUyuov' GorEp yap Padiwg &Fa- 
metal, obtw Kai padiog oß&vvvraı, Chrysostom.—How lightly Baur deprives 
this whole history of its historical character, may be seen in his Paulus, I. 
p- 217, ed. 2. 


1 But see on xvii. 5. 

2 Comp. Strabo, xiii. p. 629; Vulg.: con- 
ventus forenses. 

3 Comp. xvii. 18. 

4“ Quia magistratu eivitatis convocatur et 
regitur,’”’ Grotius; in contrast to this illegal 
concourse, comp. on vv. 32, 30. 

5 Comp. Plat. Phaed. p. 101B : ovöcev Gnrnoere 
TEPALTEPW. 

6 Vulgate, Luther, Calvin, and others. So 
also Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 154 (E. T. 177%). 
Certainly the oracewo wep: is in keeping with 
éykaAcigOar mept Tivos, XXiii, 29, xxvi. 7. But 


it may be urged, on the other hand, that such 
a position of the preposition after the noun 
(Krüger, $ Ixviii. 4.2; Kühner, § 626) is not 
usual in the N. T., and also that the ypaunarevs 
in his speech was too diplomatically prudent 
to designate, on his part, the affair exactly as 
a tumult (oracıs). In his mouth it is only a 
concourse (svatpopy).—We may add, that in 
Greek writers mpooxadcta@ar, with the simple 
genitive, is the usual expression. 

7 Vulgate. 

8 vv. 35-40. 


378 CHAP. XIX.—NOTES. 


Notes BY AMERICAN EDITOR. 
(1°) Ephesus. V. 1. 


Ephesus was the greatest city of Asia Minor, and the metropolis of a province 
said to embrace no less than five hundred cities. It was situated on the 
Cayster, and built partly on the two mountains Prion and Coressus, and partly 
on the valley between them. It had a commodious harbor, and lay on the 
main road of traffic between the east and the west, a position favorable alike 
to inland and maritime commerce. It was a free city of the Roman Empire, 
. and self-governed. It was full of elegant buildings ; and its markets were 
supplied with the choicest products of all lands, and adorned with works of 
art of every kind. They supplied the writer of the Apocalypse with the vivid 
and glowing description given in Rey. xviii. 12,13. Its theatre was one of the 
largest ever erected, said to be capable of holding 30,000 persons, The city 
was the resort of all nations, and its population was numerous and multi- 
farious, 

«It was more Hellenic than Antioch, more Oriental than Corinth, more 
populous than Athens, more wealthy and refined than Thessalonica, more 
sceptical than Ancyra or Pessinus. It was, with the single exception of Rome, 
by far the most important scene of the apostle’s toils, and was destined in after 
years to become not only the first of the seven churches of Asia, but the seat 
of one of those great (Ecumemical Councils which defined the faith of the 
Christian world.’ (Farrar.) 

The temple of Diana, built of white marble, was magnificent in extent, 425 
feet in length and 220 feet in breadth, with 127 columns 60 feet high, each 
said to be the gift of a king, and many of them adorned with rich ornamenta- 
tion'in bas-relief, It was the glory of the city, and one of the wonders of the 
world. The sun in his course, it was said, shone on nothing more splendid. 

Ephesus was specially famous for two things—the worship of Diana and 
the practice of magic—and it was the headquarters of many defunct supersti- 
tions, which owed their continuance to various orders of priests. The general 
character of the inhabitants was in very bad repute. Renan, basing his views 
upon numerous ancient authorities, writes: “It might have been called the 
rendezvous of courtesans and viveurs. The city was full to repletion of magi- 
cians, diviners, mimics, and flute-players, eunuchs, jewellers, amulet and metal 
merchants, and romance writers. The expression, Ephesian novels, indicated, 
like that of Milesian fables, a style of literature, Ephesus being one of the cities 
in which they preferred to locate the scenes of love stories. The mildness of 
the climate, in fact, disinclined one to serious things Dancing and singing 
remained the sole occupation ; public life degenerated into bacchanalian revels. 
Good studies were thrown aside.’ Nothing now remains of the magnificent 
metropolis of Asia but a miserable Turkish village. The once thronged harbor 
is now a malarious marsh. The ruins alone are grand. The vast theatre may 
still be traced, but of the proud temple not one stone remains above another. 
It is said that some of the pillars may still be seen in the Mosque of St. 
Sophia at Constantinople. 


NOTES. 379 


(3°) Whether there be any Holy Ghost. V.2. 


The persons referred to were believers in Jesus as the Messiah, but they 
were imperfectly instructed, and had as yet a very imperfect Christian experi- 
ence. From the fact that they seem to hold the same relation to John and 
Jesus as Apollos did, they were probably converts under his first ministry. It 
is not conceivable that they could have received even the baptism of John with- 
out knowing something of the Holy Spirit, his existence and personality ; as 
Bengel justly remarks, ‘‘ They could not have followed either Moses or John 
the Baptist without hearing of the Holy Ghost.’’ The words then must mean 
that they believed in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Messiah, and were baptized 
into that faith, but they had not heard anything about the descent of the Holy 
Spirit at Pentecost, and the marvels that followed. That the question and 
answer both had reference to the special rather than ordinary gifts of the Spirit 
is obvious when we refer to verse 6, where we are told that ‘‘ the Holy Ghost 
came upon them ; and they spake with tongues and prophesied.” The baptism 
of John was simply provisional and preparatory. He taught his disciples to 
believe in Jesus as the Messiah already come ; and belief implied obedience ; 
and obedience baptism in his name. Archbishop Sumner gives the following 
paraphrase of the passage : ‘‘ You are the disciples of Christ. Have the gifts 
of the Spirit been bestowed on you as on other congregations of disciples ? 
Have any prophesied? Any spoken with tongues? Any done wonderful 
works? Their answer signifies that they had not heard whether such a power 
of the Holy Ghost was granted at all. The Holy Ghost they knew. But they 
had not heard of such an efiusion of the Spirit as Paul alluded to, or known 
that they were to expect it.’ 


(K°) Exorcists. V. 13. 


** Such professed exorcists were numerous in the days of the apostles. Our 
Lord himself alludes to them, when he says, ‘ If I by Beelzebub cast out devils, 
by whom do your children cast them out?’ The Ephesians were specially ad- 
dicted to astrology, sorcery, incantations, amulets, exorcisms, and every kind 
of magical imposture, and persons of this class flocked to the city. They pro- 
fessed that their magical arts were derived from Solomon. Josephus refers to 
this, and also mentions a certain root which, being brought to those who were 
possessed, quickly expelled the demons from their bodies. Seven sons of 
Sceva, who was probably a chief ruler of the synagogue, practised this art, and 
impiously pronounced as a cabalistic sign the sacred name of Jesus. About 
this time, also, the celebrated thaumaturgist,Appolonius of Tyana, is supposed 
to have visited Ephesus. The worship of Diana and the practice of magic 
were almost indissolubly connected, and a species of writings were manufac- 
tured and sold to the credulous purchaser, which when pronounced were used 
as a charm, and when written carried as an amulet. “ Among them were the 
words askion, kataskion, lia, letras, damnameneus, and aéséa, which for sense and 
efficiency were about on a par with the daries, derdaries, astataries or ista pista 
sista, which Cato, the elder, held to be a sovereign remedy for a sprain, or the 
expulsion of the demun of blindness.’’ (Furrar.) Among such a people Paul 
preached the gospel of Jesus, and wrought many real miracles in his name. 


380 CHAP. XIX.—NOTES. 


(u°) He dismissed the assembly. V. 41. 


There is a striking resemblance between the tumult at Ephesus and that at 
Philippi. They were both distinguished from all other persecutions men- 
tioned in the Acts, in that they were not caused by the Jews, but by Gen- 
tiles ; both also originated in interested motives, the loss of gain ; both were 
characterized by senseless rioting and cruel violence, and in both the actors 
were restrained from proceeding to extreme measures. At Ephesus, when the 
mob was at the height of excitement, wild uproar, and blind fury, the town 
clerk by a well-timed and admirable address appeased their wrath and dis- 
missed the crowd. He showed them that such senseless and noisy conduct 
was undignified, as the universality and magnificence of their worship was 
unimpeachable ; that their course with regard to these men was unjusti- 
fiable, as they could prove nothing illegal or criminal against them ; that it 
was entirely unnecessary, as other means of redress were open to them; and 
that it was hazardous, as it might involve them in difficulty with the Roman 
government. Dick suggests the following reflections on this passage: That 
opposition to the gospel arises from the depraved passions of men—avarice, 
ambition, and love of pleasure ; that the sacred name of religion has often 
been prostituted to serve the most infamous purposes ; that the concurrence 
of a multitude in support of a cause is no proof of its justice ; and that God 
reigns and carries on the designs of his government amid all the commotions 
of the world, and constrains the very wrath of man to praise him. Taylor gives 
these : That self-interest perverts the judgment, and that it speaks ill for a 
trade when its prosperity is destroyed by the success of the gospel. Schaf 
adds another lesson : That which profits the purse may injure the soul. 


CRITICAL REMARKS. 381 


CHAPTER XX. 


Ver. 1. «ai aorac.] AB DE, min. vss. have «ai mapaxaiéoas, donao. So 
Lachm. Yet D has rodAd before mapaxad. (so Born.), and E kai before dorac, 
Other witnesses have «ai napax. aorao. re. So Rinck. mapara}, has certainly 
preponderant attestation in its favour, but against the internal decisive con- 
sideration, that no reason is apparent for its subsequent omission, whereas it 
might very easily suggest itself from ver. 2 and xvi. 40 asa pious marginal 
remark to aorao. — Ver. 4. IIößpov] is wanting in Elz., and is condemned by 
Mill as an addition from tradition. But it has greatly preponderant attesta- 
tion, and might be passed over quite as well on the ground of a varying tradi- 
tion, as by mistake of the transcribers on account of the similar sound of the 
initial syllable in the following name. — Ver. 5. otto] Lachm. reads ovro: dé, 
after ABE NS, min. A connective addition. — Ver. 7. nuov] Elz. has öv pabn- 
TOV, in opposition to A B D E, min. Chrys. Aug. and most vss. An interpola- 
tion on account of the following auroic. Still stronger witnesses support 7uev 
in ver. 8, for which Elz, has joav. — Ver. 9. kaßnuevos] Instead of this, cabetd- 
pevos (Lachm. Tisch. Born.) is preponderantly attested. Comp. on ii. 2,— 
Ver. 11. dprov] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read rov dprov, according to ABC D* N*, 
Rightly ; the article was neglected after ver. 7, because its force was overlooked. 
— Ver. 15. kat ueiv. €v Tpwy., 77] ABCEN, min. have merely 77 dé So Lachm. 
Several vss. and some more recent codd. have «ai 77. But there was no occasion 
for the insertion of ueiv. év Tp., whereas its omission is very capable of explana- 
tion, because Trogyllium was not situated in Samos, as the context seemed to 
say. — Ver. 16. kexpixeı] Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Tisch. 
Born., according to greatly preponderating evidence. But Elz. Scholz have 
éxpwve. A church-lesson begins at ver. 16, and therefore the tense, which has 
its reference in what precedes, was altered. — 7v] Lachm. reads ein, following 
considerable witnesses. A grammatical improvement. — Ver, 18. After mpös 
airov A has ouod övrwv aurov, which Lachm. adopted ; others have öuohvuadov; and 
others ouéce 6vTwy aitdv (so Born., according to D). Different additions for the 
sake of completion. — Ver. 19. Before daxp, Elz. has roAdwv, which already 
Griesb. rejected, according to decisive testimony. A strengthening addition 
from 2 Cor. ii. 4. — Ver. 22. According to decisive testimony read &yo, with 
Lachm, Tisch., after dedeu. — Ver. 23. ov] is wanting in Elz., but is decidedly 
attested, and was easily passed over as quite unnecessary. — ye] is, according 
to decisive evidence, to be placed after @Aipers (Lachm. Tisch.). Born. has 
pot Ev 'TepoooAvuoıs, according to D, vss. Lucif., and that only after pévovow. 
But go: is a mechanical repetition from the preceding, and év 'IepoooA. is an 
addition by way of a gloss ; the two, moreover, are not equally attested. — Ver. 
24. AAN’ oidevds .. . Euavro] very many variations. Lachm. has aA’ obdevds 
Adyov Exw, oid? ToLoiuar TAY WoynY Tıniav Euavt@. Tisch. reads aAr’ obdevds Adyov 
moloduaı THY WuyHY Tıulav Euavro, according to BC D** N*, vss. Lucif. Born. 
reads essentially as Lachm., yet adding po after &xo, and pov after puyjv. The 


382 CHAP: ‚IN., 14. : 

Recepta is founded on EGH, Chrys. Theophyl. Oec. ; but G, Chrys, have not 
pov. The reading of Lachm. (A D* S, min. Vulg.), as well as the Recepta, are 
to be considered as alterations and expansions of the reading of Tisch., which 
was not understood. -— After dyéuov uov Elz, Scholz have pera yapas, which is 
wanting in ABD, min. Lucif. Ambr. and several vss. A scholion. — Ver. 
25. tod Oeoö] is wanting in A BCX, 13, 15*, 36, Copt. Syr. p. Arm. Chrys. 
Rightly deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. A supplementary addition, D has 
tov ’Incoo. So Born. — Ver. 26. éyé] Considerable witnesses have eiuı, which 
Griesb. has recommended and Lachm. adopted, Rightly; é¢yé came from 
xviii. 6. — Ver. 28. roi Kupiov] Elz. has rod Ooi, which is adhered to among 
recent critics (following Mill, Whitby, Wolf, Bengel, and others), by Scholz, 
Alford, Rinck, Zucubr. crit. p. 82£. The weight of evidence is eaternally de- 
cisive for tod Kypiv; A C* DE, 13, 15, 18, 36, 40, 69, 73, 81, 95*, 130, 156, 
163, 180, Copt. Sahid. Syr. p. (on the margin) Arm. Aeth. Constitutt. (ii. 61), 
Ir. (iii. 14), Eus. (on Isa. xxxv.), Ath. (ad Serap. 1 in ms.), Didym. (de Sp. St. 
11), Chrys. Lueif. Aug. Jer. al. rod Ocod is found among uncial mss. only in 
B &, and, besides, only in about twenty more recent and inferior codd., and 
among vss. in the Vulg. Syr. p. (in the text) ; but among the Fathers in none 
before Epiph. and Ambros. See the more detailed statement of the evidence 
in Tisch. The internal decisive argument for 7. Kvpiov lies in the fact that in 
the Pauline Epistles &xxA. 7. Kup. never occurs, but &xkA. r. Ocod eleven times; 
hence at our passage the Pauline expression was written on the margin as a 
parallel, and then, welcome to hyper-orthodoxy (already in Ignat. ad Eph. 1, 
and in Tert. ad ux. ii. 3, there is found the expression blood of God, which 
others, even Ath, censured as unbiblical ; see Wetstein and Tisch.), was taken 
into the text and transmitted. This appears far more accordant with the dog- 
matic tendency of those times and the monastic spirit than the usual justifica- 
tion of tod Ocod: “Probabilius est ob sequentia mutatum, quam e scriptis 
Pauli illatum esse’’ (Rinck, l.c.). The readings tod Kvpiov Ocot, tod Oeod k. 
Kovpinv, and tod Kupiov x. cot (this latter Griesb, recommends, without, how- 
ever, approving it, but Matth. received it), are combinations of the original 
reading with the Pauline parallel written on the margin. Teller’s and van 
Hengel’s proposal to read only rjv Ex«A. is destitute of all critical support. — 
Tov aluaros Tov Idiov] Elz. has rod idiov aiuaros, in opposition to ABCDERS, 
min. vss. Ir. Lucif. An alteration, which arose from the adoption of r. Q¢od, 
in order to establish the interpretation of the blood of God. -- Ver. 29, After 
éyé Elz. Scholz, Tisch. have yap, against A C* D NS, min, Vulg. Fathers. The 
more to be rejected, as others read örı éyci (B), others éyo dé (N*), others still 
kai éyé. A connective addition. roöro also, which Elz. Scholz, Tisch. have 
after olda, has such preponderating evidence against it, and in such essential 
agreement with those witnesses which condemn yap, that it cannot be con- 
sidered as original, although, taken by itself, it might be more easily omitted 
than added. — Ver. 32. After tudas Elz. Scholz have adeAdoi, which Lachm. 
Tisch. Born. have deleted, according to A B D 8, 33, 34, 68, Syr. Erp. Copt. 
Sahid. Vulg. Jer. If it had been original, there is no apparent reason for its 
omission ; on the other hand, its insertion at this solemn passage was very 
natural,—oixod.] Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Born. But Elz. Scholz, 
Tisch. have éroxod., against decisive testimony. A more precise definition 
corresponding to the persons in question; and therefore, also, DE, vss, add 
buds. — Ver, 35. tov Aéywr] G and more than thirty min. Vulg. Sahid. Arm, 


PAUL IN GREECE. 383 


Aeth. Chrys. Theophyl. have ro» Aöyov. So Rinck, Others have rod Aöyov after 
min. ; so Bengel. Both are alterations, because only one saying of Christ 


afterwards follows. — The order pdAdov dıdövaı (Elz. inverts it) is decidedly 
attested. 


Vv. 1-3. Mera dé 75 rate. tr. Yöpvß.] is simply a statement of time, not, as 
Michaelis, Eichhorn, Bertholdt, and Hug hold, the motive of departure, for 
which there is no hint in the text,! and against which the resultless char- 
acter of the tumult testifies. — daoracdyevoc| here of the furewell salutation, 
combined with kissing and embracing, vale dicere.* —aitoic] the Mace- 
donian Christians. —‘EAAdda] i.e. ’Ayaiav, xix. 21. Luke alternates in his 
use of the appellations well known as synonyms, which, after xix. 21, 
could occasion no misunderstanding. This against Schrader, who under- 
stands ‘EAA. here of the districts lying between the Peloponnesus and 
Thessaly and Epirus, especially of Attica, and would have the journey to 
Corinth only inferred from xix. 31. — rornoac re unvac rpeic] certainly for the 
most part in Corinth.* That Luke, moreover, gives us no information of 
the foundation of the church at Corinth, and of the apostle’s labours 
there, is just one of the many points of incompleteness in his book. — rov 
irootp.| namely, to Asia (ver. 4), from which he had come. The genitive 
depends directly on yvoun.* 

Ver. 4. "Axpı t7¢ ’ Aciac®] excepting only the short separation from Phi- 
lippi to Troas, ver. 5, where those companions (cuveirero), having journeyed 
before the apostle, waited for him. The statement is swmmary, not ex- 
cluding the sailing before from Philippi to Troas, the Asiatic emporium ; 
but Tittmann® erroneously judges: ‘‘eos usque in Asiam cum Paulo una 
fuisse, deinde praeivisse eumque expectasse.’’? Vv. 5, 6 are at variance 
with this. Nor is there, with Wieseler, p. 293, and Baumgarten, to be arti- 
ficially deduced from aypı t7¢ ’Aciac the meaning: “up to that point from 
which people crossed to Asia;’’ so that Luke would oddly enough have 
indicated nothing else than as far as Philippi. On ovvérecSat, only here in 
the N. T., comp. 2 Macc. xv. 2; 3 Macc. v. 48, vi. 21; very frequent in 
the classics. —Of Sopater, the son of Pyrrhus, of Beroea, and whether he 
is identical with Sosipater, Rom. xvi. 21, nothing is known. The other 
companions were two Thessalonians, Aristarchus* and Secundus, entirely 
unknown ; further, an inhabitant of Derbe, Caius, thus different from the 
Macedonian, xix. 29; for Derbe belonged to Lycaonia ;* Timotheus, whose 
dwelling is supposed as known and therefore is not specified ;° and lastly, 
the two Asiatics, Tychicus and Trophimus." It was nothing but arbitrary 
violence, when Ernesti, Valckenaer, and Kuinoel, in order to identify 


1 See on the contrary, xix. 21. have taken place for the sake of ver. 5. It is, 
2 As Xen. Anab. vii. 1.8, 40; Hell. iv.1.3; however, approved by Lekebusch. 
Cyrop. ii. 1. 1. 6 Synon. N. T. p. 85. 
3 The anakoluthic nominative, as in xix. 34. 7 xix. 29. 
4 As in xiv. 9, xxvii. 20. Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 5. 5 See on xiv. 6. 
5 The omission of äxpı 7. “Actas is not ® See on xvi. 1. [iii. 12. 
strongly enough attested by BN, 13, Vulg. Aeth. 10 Eph. vi. 21 ; Col. iv.7; 2 Tim. iv. 12; Tit. 


Erp Beda, particularly as it might ea-ily 11 xxi. 29; 2 Tim. iv. 20. 


384 CHAP; XxX., 5-10. 


Caius—-how extremely frequent was the name !—with the Caius of xix. 12 
and to make Timothy a native of Derbe, wished to put a comma, after Taioc 
and then to read Aspß. 62 Tıu.! Following the same presupposition, Ols- 
hausen contents himself with merely putting a point after Taioc and then 
taking «ai in the signification of also! And for this even Wieseler? has 
declared himself, appealing to the parallelism of the language, according 
to which, from Oeccatovx. onwards, the nomen gentilitium is always placed 
first. But the parallelism is rather of this nature, that the nomen gentili- 
tium first follows after, Bepo:, then precedes, Beooakovır., then again follows 
after, AcpZ., and lastly, again precedes, ’Aovav., thus in regular alternation. 
We may add, that no special reason for such a numerous escort is indicated 
in the text, and hypotheses ® referring to.the point amount to mere subjec- 
tive fancies. 

Vv. 5, 6. ‘Hyac] Luke had remained behind at Philippi, xvi. 40. Now, 
when Paul, on his present journey back through Macedonia, came to Phi- 
lippi, Luke again joined him. But the above-mentioned seven companions 
(oöro:) journeyed before—wherefore ? is unknown ; possibly to make prepa- 
rations for the further sea voyage—to Troas, and there waited the arrival 
of Pauland Luke. For oöro: cannot, without arbitrariness, be otherwise 
referred than to all the seven above mentioned, which is not precluded by 
xxi. 29, xxvii. 2, and thereby, no doubt, our passage is decisive against 
the hypothesis that Timothy speaks in the jyeic.* Hence the supporters of 
that hypothesis are necessarily reduced to refer, as already Beza and Wolf 
have done, otra merely to Tychicus and Trophimus.’ — pera räc qyuép. TOV 
aZ.] Paul remained over the Paschal days‘ in quietness, keeping holy the 
festival of his people in Christian freedom.’ — äxpıc nuep. révte] specifies 
Gypt tivoc® i.e. how long the Epxeodaı lasted from the sailing from Philippi, 
namely, up to five days.” The reading reurraio. ! is a correct gloss. — juépac 
éxta] a full week.*' More is not to be sought behind this simple statement 
of time, in opposition to Baumgarten, II. p. 48 f. 

Ver. 7. But on the first day of the week. That the Sunday was already 
at this time regularly observed by holding religious assemblies and Agapae, ¥ 
cannot, indeed, be made good with historical certainty, since possibly the 
observance of the Agapae in our passage might only accidentally occur on 
the first day of the week, because Paul intended to depart on the iollowing- 


1Heinrichs: kat Tiu. Acpß. Lachmann, whole Gentile church ; comp, also Lange, I. 
Praef. p. ix., conjectured cat Aep8. Tıu69. He  p. 291. Such inventions are purely fanciful. 
places a point after Tiwod., and makes the Se, 4 See Introduction, § 1. 
read by him after odrot, ver. 5, to be resump- 5 Steiger on Col. p. 337; Schenkel in the 
tive (repeating the de after “Acvavoi), which, as Stud.u. Krit. 1841, p.§5; U.rich, Bleek, Beitr. 
the discourse isnot interrupted by parentheses, I. p. 52; de Wette, Lachmann, 


would be without motive and forced. SYASD. 59. 
2p. 26, and in Herzog’s Hncykl. XXI. p. 7 Comp. Chrys. 
276. 8 Heliod. iv. 19. 65. 
3 According to Schneckenburger, they are ® Comp. on Luke ii. 87; Plut. Mor. p. 791 E. 
the collection - commissioners of the chief 10 D, Born. 
churches; according to Baumgarten, they 11 Comp. xxi. 4. 
appear, in their number corresponding to the 12 See on Matt. xxviii. 1; 1 Cor. xvi. 2. 


deacons in Jerusalem, as representatives of the 13 kAdoat Aprov ; See OD li. 42, 


PLOT AGAINST PAUL. 385 


day, and since even 1 Cor. xvi. 2, Rev. i. 10, do not necessarily distinguish 
this day as set apart for religious services. But most probably the observance 
of Sunday is based on an apostolic arrangement — yet one certainly brought 
about only gradually and in the spirit of Christian freedom ' — the need of 
which manifested itself naturally, importance of the resurrection of Jesus 
and of the effusion of the Spirit at Pentecost, and indeed necessarily, in the 
first instance, when the gospel came to be diffused among the Gentiles who 
had no Sabbath festival ; and the assumption of which is indispensable for 
the explanation of the early universal observance of that day, rj rov 7Alov 
Aeyouévyn nuspa mavrwv Kara TOAELC } Aypovs uevövrav Eml TO AUTO ovv£isvoug yiveraı,” 
although for a long time the observance of the Sabbath along with it was 
not given up by the Jewish Christians and even by others’ — a circum- 
stance which was doubtless connected with the antignostic interest. 
Rightly, therefore, is the via rv caßß. in our passage regarded as a day of 
special observance.* The observance of Sunday was not universally intro- 
duced by law until a.p. 321 by Constantine.’ — airoic| to the assembled. 
Luke changes his standpoint, previously 7juév, as the discourse was held 
with the Christians of that place. — péxypt wecov.| On Sunday, not Saturday, 
evening they had assembled for the love-feast. On reivew and its compounds, 
used of long speaking, see Heind.°® 

Vv. 8-10. ‘Hoav dé Aaur. ix.) therefore the fall of the young man could 
at once be perceived. The lamps served for the lighting up of the room, 
for it was night ; but perhaps at the same time for heightening the solem- 
nity of the occasion. According to Ewald, Luke wished to obviate the 
evil reports concerning the nocturnal meetings of the Christians ;7 but they 
remained withal nocturnal and thereby exposed to suspicion. — Whether 
Eutychus was a young man serving,® which at least is not to be inferred 
from the occurrence of the name among siaves and freedmen,° the text does 
not say. —éx? ry¢ Yupid.| on the open window, i.e. on the window-seat. The 
openings of the windows in the East, having no glass, were sometimes with 
and sometimes without lattice-work.!? So they are still at the present day. 
— karadepöusvoc K.r.A.] falling into a deep sleep. Katadépecda is the proper 
word for this among Greek writers,! usually with eic öürvov.? Observe the 
logical relation of the participles: But as there sat (kadeLöu., see the critical 
remarks) a young man, falling, in his sitting there, into deep sleep during the 
prolonged discourse of Paul, he fell, overpowered by the sleep, from the third 
story, etc.!*— The discourse continued for a longer time'4 than the young man 


1See Neander in the Deutsch. Zeitschr. 8 ad Plat. Gorg. p. 465 D; Pflugk, ad Eur, 


1850, p. 203 ff. 

2 Justin, Apol. I. 67; comp. c. Tryph. p. 34; 
Ignat. ad Magnes. 9 ; Barnab. 15. 

3 Constitt. ap. ii. 59. 2, vii. 23. 2, can. 66; 
Orig. Hom. 28 ; Eus. iii. 27. 

4 See on the whole subject, Augusti, Denkw. 
II. p. 345 ff.; Schöne, über. die kirchl. 
Gebräuche, I. p. 335 ff. ; Neander, apost. K. I. 
p. 198; Ewald, p. 164 ff.; Harnack, christl. 
Gemeindegottesd. p. 115 fi. 

5 See Gieseler, X. G.I. 1, p. 274, ed. 4. 


Med. 1351. 

7 Comp. Calvin and Bengel. 

8 Rosenmiiller, Heinrichs. 

® Artem. iii. 38; Phaedr, 3, prol. 

10 See Winer, Realw. 

11 Comp. also Aquila, Ps. Ixxv. 6. 

12 Lucian, Dial. mer. ii. 4; Herodian, ii. 1. 
8, ii. 9. 6. Comp. Hom. Od. vi. 2: ünvok, 
KOMLAT® ApnıLEvos, 

13 As to em. mActov comp. on iy. 17. 

14 xyiii. 20. 


386 CHAP: xx, 11=17. 


had expected. —az6 tov ixvov] amö denotes the proceeding from, the power 
producing the effect,’ and the article denotes the sleep already mentioned.? 
— ipdy verpög]) he was taken up dead. The words affirm nothing else than 
that the young man actually fell down dead and was taken up dead, Chrys. : 
dia TovTO anodavov, iva IlavAov axovon, Calvin, Beza, and others ; recently 
Schneckenburger, Schwegler, Zeller, and Baumgarten ; and only so under- 
stood has the fall, as well as the conduct of the apostle in ver. 10 and the 
result, tke significance which can have induced its being narrated, namely, 
as a raising from the dead.” This weremark in opposition to the view which 
has become common, as if oc verpöc were used, ‘‘apparently dead.” * —- 
Eneneoev avT@ k.T.A.| not in order to examine him, but in order to revive him 
by his contact, in a way similar to the procedure of Elisha and Elijah.’ — 
um OopvBeiobe’ 7 yap yuy7 k.t.A.] Thus he speaks, obviating the consternation 
of those present,° when he had convinced himself of the successful inter- 
vention of his miraculous influence. His soul is in him, i.e. he is living! 7 
puyxy abrov, not év auro, has the emphasis, not spoken without a lively feeling 
of victory. The young man had, in fact, been but now äyvyos. Accord- 
ingly there is no ambiguity of the words, in which Lekebusch asserts that 
we desiderate an added ‘‘ again,’’ and would explain this ambiguity on the 
ground that the author himself was not quite convinced of the miraculous 
nature of the incident.” 

Vv. 11, 12. On account of the discoursings the intended partaking of 
the Agapae*® had not yet taken place. But by the fall of the young man 
these discoursings were broken off ; and now, after Paul had returned to 
the room, he commences, as the father of a family among those assembled, 
the so long deferred meal —he breaks the bread, and eats, and discourses 
at table® until break of day, whereupon he thus, oürwc, after all that is 
mentioned in avaßäc . . . auync,'” leaves the place of meeting. After his 
departure, they, ‘‘ qui remanserant apud adolescentem, ’’ !! brought the lad 
alive into the room, and they, those assembled, were by this greatly ” com- 
forted over their separation from the apostle, who had left behind such a 
onueiov Of his miraculous power. — kAdoac röv (see the critical remarks) dpropv 
stands in definite reference to «Adca: äpr., ver, 7, and therefore the article 
is put. Piscator, Grotius, Kuinoel, and others erroneously hold that a 
breakfast is meant, which Paul partook of to strengthen him for his jour- 
ney, and that therefore yevoau. is subjoined. But the Agape was, in fact, 
a real meal, and that therefore yevodu. denotes nothing else than that Paul 
had begun to partake of it. It is only added to bring more prominently 


1 Bernhardy, p. 222; Buttmann, newt. Gr. 
Pp. 277 (E. T. 322). 
2 Matt. i. 24. 


6 Comp. on un 8opvß., Dem. de cor. 35. 
7 See, on the other hand, Oertel, Paulus in 
d. Apostelgesch. p. 147. 


3 Baur’s criticism in the case, however, 
converts an event which was in itself natural 
into a parallel in a miraculous form with the 
raising of the dead narrated of Peter in chap. 
bx 

4 De Wette ; comp. Ewald. 

52 Kings iv. 34; 1 Kings xvii. 17 ff. 


8 Ver.?. 

® Comp. Chrysostom. 

10 See, Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 262 (E. T. 
306). 

1 Erasmus. 

12 of wetpiws, often so with Plutarch, also in 
Isocrates and others. 


SERVICES AT TROAS. 387 


forward this: partaking as having at length taken place. — éuAjoag, as in 
Luke xxiv. 14; more familiar than dcaAcy., ver. 9.1 — Hyayov] they brought 
him, so that he came into the midst of them; but only now, so that thus 
subsequently to his revival,? he must have gradually recovered, in order to 
be able to return into the room. — röv raida] he must consequently have 
been still very youug. — Zövra] Opposed to vexpéc, ver. 9, and for the joyful 
confirmation of the words of the apostle, ver. 10. 

Ver. 13. ‘Hueic] without Paul. — "Acooc, a seaport in Mysia, south of 
Troas, opposite Lesbos, &#° byyAod x. dS£0¢ x. dvoavödov térov, Steph. Byz. — 
nv dıarerayu.] middle,* for he had so arranged, namely, that they should 
from thence (éxeifev) receive him on board (avadayf.).—airéc] He for his 
part chose the route by land, probably because he had a particular official 
object in view. More arbitrary are the suggestions of Calvin, that it took 
place valetudinis causa ; of Michaelis and Stolz, that he wished to escape 
the snates of the Jews; of Lange, that he acted thus in order to withdraw 
himself from the circle of his too careful protectors ; and of Ewald, that 
he did so in order to be solitary. 

Vv. 14, 15. Hic rv "Acoov] The element of the previous movement — the 
notion of coming-together — still prevails.* So also the landing ei¢ Zauov, 
ver. 15. — MirvAyvn, the beautiful ® capital of Lesbos, on the east coast. — 
avrırpb] over against.°— Kai peiv. tv Tpwy.| Thus on the same day they had 
sailed over from Samos, where they had touched (rapeß4A.), to Trogyllium, 
a town and promontory on the Ionian coast,’ distant only forty stadia, and 
there passed the night. On the different modes of writing the name Tpuy., 
see Bornemann. 

Vv. 16, 17. The ship was thus entirely at his disposal, probably one 
hired specially for this voyage. — rapar?. r. "Egecov] he sailed past: Eph.; 
for in the chief church of Asia, to which Paul stood in such intimate 
relation, and where he also would encounter his opponents,® he would have 
been under the necessity of tarrying too long. In order to avoid such 
prolonged contact with friend and foe, because on account of the aim of 
his journey he might not now spend the time® in Asia, he arranged the 
interview with the presbyters, which was to subserve the longing of his 
parting love as well as the exigency of the threatening future, not at the 
very near Trogyllium, but at Miletus, distant about nine geographical 
miles from Ephesus. — ei dwvar. jv avro] if it should be possible for him. 
Direct form of expression.’ Of another nature is the conception in xxvii. 
39: ei divawro. — yévecba] in the sense of coming, asin John vi. 25.1 — 
méupac|] as in Matt. xiv. 10, and in the classical writers. He caused them 
to be summoned to him by an embassy to Ephesus, 

Vv. 18, 19. “In hac concione” praccipue huc insistit Paulus, ut, quos 





1 Comp. x. 24. 8 1 Cor. xvi. 9. 

2 Ver. 10. 9 xpovorp., comp. Aristot. Rhet. iii. 3; Plut. 
3 Winer, p. 246 (E. T'. 328). Mor. p. 225 B. 

* Kühner, II. p. 317. ; 10 Kiihner, § 846. 

SHor200.1.7.1, Fp. 1.11.17. f 11 Luke xxii. 40, al. Comp. xxi. 17, xxv. 15. 
6 See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 444. 12.On the Pauline character of this speech 


7 Strabo, xiv. p. 686f.; Plin. N. 7. v. 29. (in opposition to Baur, üb. d. Pastoralor. p. 


388 CHAP. XX., 18-24. 


Ephesi creaverat pastores, seo exemplo hortetur ad munus suum fideliter 
peragendum,’’ Calvin. It isa clear and true pastoral mirror.—Only the 
Ephesian ! presbyters were assembled ; not, as Iren. iii. 14. 2 relates, those 
also of the neighbouring churches, —an error which arose, perhaps, on ac- 
count of ver. 28, from the later episcopal dignity. — amd mpdry¢ .. . 
’Aciav] belongs to the following röc . . . éyevduyv, to which it is emphat- 
ically prefixed,? not to érictaofe ; for the point was not the continuity of 
the knowledge of those addressed, but that of the apostolic conduct. 
.Tholuck, with justice, here calls attention to the frequency and force of 
the self-witness, which we meet with in Paul.* The reason thereof lies in 
his own special consciousness ;* and it is wrong to find in the self-witness 
of this speech the apologetic fabrication of a later adorer.° — The ‚first 
day; see xviii. 19. On ue® iv. éyevou., Comp. Vil. 88.— ro Kupiw| to 
Christ, as His apostles. — uera do. rareıvogp.| with all possible humility, 
TOAAG yap eidn THe Tameıvodpoovvnc.° — daxpiwr.| See on ver. 31. s 

Vv. 20, 21. ‘Qe ovdév x.r.A.] sets forth more precisely the rac. — rov u 
avayy.| contains the dien which would have been present in the öreor. : 
how I have held back (dissimulavi) nothing of what was profitable, in order not 
to preach and to teach it to you, etc. So also ver. 27: for I have not been 
holding back, in order not, etc. The un extends to bothinfinitives. That 
dissimulare might have taken place from the fear of men, or in order to 
please men.’ — On oidév treorevAdunv, comp. Dem. 54, wilt. : 
VrooTElAduEevoc merappnolaouaı, and 980. 22: 


av’ arAdc, ovdéev 
undéev brrooTEAAduevov und’ aiayuve- 
uevov, also 415. 2: wera rappyciac diadexOqva undév brooreAAöusvov, according 
to Becker.* — rov ovusepövrov] ‘* Haec docenda sunt ; reliqua praecidenda,’’ 
Bengel.® — ryv eic r. Heov uerav.]| the repentance, by which we turn to God.” It 
is not, with Beza, Bengel, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, to be referred only to the 
Gentiles, and riotiy x.r.2. to the Jews; for the call to this werdvo.a was ad- 
dressed also to the Jews, inasmuch as they were unfaithful to God, not 
indeed by idolatry, but by immorality and hypocrisy.!! Bengel, more- 
over, aptly remarks: Repentance and faith are the ‘‘summa eorum quae 
utilia sunt.’’ 

Ver. 22. ’Idov] Singular, although addressed to several.!? — éyé] apostolic 
sense of personal signijicance in the consciousness of his important and mo- 
mentous destiny. — dedeuévoc TS mveuuarı] cannot denote the shutting off of any 


93), see Tholuck in the Stud. u. Krit. 1839, p. 3'1/ Cor. iv. 16, xi. 1; 2\ Corie seen. 


305 ff.; Neander, p. 473 ff. According to Baur 
and Zeller, the whole speech (according to 
Schneckenburger, only part of it) is an apolo- 
getic fiction. Ewald correctly remarks: ‘‘ to 
doubt its historical character in general, is 
folly itself.”’”—Precisely this speech, and that 
to the Athenians, chap. xvii., bear most de- 
cidedly and most directly the impress of vivid 


~ originality. See also Klostermann, Vindiciae 


Luc. p. 40 ff.; Trip, Paulus, p. 206 ff. 

1 ris erkAne., ver. 17. 

2 Comp. on 1 Cor. xv. 2; Winer, p. 522 (E. 
11.1202). 


17, al. ; comp. Trip, p. 214 ff. 

41 Cor. iv. 4, xv. 10. 

5 See particularly, Zeller, p. 273. 

® Oecumenius. See also Theile, ad Zp. 
Jac. p. 6 fi. [Cor. iv. 3, al. 

7 But see Gal. ii. 14, i. 10; Rom. i. 16; 1 

8Isocr. p. 184C; Diod. Sic. xiii. 70; also 
Plat. Ap. Socr. p. 24 A; and Stallb. im Joc. ; 
Krebs, Odss. p. 241. 

9 Comp. 1 Cor. vii. 35, xii. ¥%. 

10 Comp. iii. 19, vili. 22, xxvi. 20. 

11 Rom. ii. 8. Comp. Mark i. 15. 

12 See on Matt. x. 16. 


PAUL AT MILETUS, 339 


inward glimpse into the future, which is first expressed afterwards and in plain 
terms.! Since, moreover, the Holy Spirit first comes in at ver. 23, and since 
the being fettered was first to befallthe apostle in Jerusalem, ver. 23, those views 
are to be rejected, which explain 70 rveiua of the Holy Spirit and dedeuévoc 
of the being fettered. Accordingly, the words are neither to be taken as: 
bound to the Holy Spirit,’ i.e. dependent on Him, my first edition; nor: 
constrained by the Holy Spirit ;* nor: fettered, i.e. already as good as fet- 
tered, J go at the instigation of the Holy Spirit ;* nor yet: fettered, i.e. vin- 
cula praesentiens, in my spirit,” but Paul expresses his consciousness of in- 
ternal binding : bound, i.e. compelled and urged in my spirit, dative of more 
precise limitation. He knows, that as regards his journey to Jerusalem, 
he follows a necessity present to his higher self-consciousness and binding 
its freedom,—an irresistible internal drawing of his higher personal life,® 
. . . eldac| The relation to ver. 23 is as follows: Paul knew 
not specially what was to befall him at Jerusalem, but only in general it was 
testified to him by the Holy Spirit in every city, that bonds and afflictions 
were awaiting him there. 

Ver. 23. IlAnv örı] except that, only knowing that." — ro rveiua ro äyıov] 
namely, by prophets,* who made this known to me. This explanation, and 
not any reference to an internal intimation of the Spirit, is required by 
xara röAı, city by city, at which I arrive on this journey. That Luke has 
not as yet mentioned any such communication, does not justify the suppo- 
sition of an unhistorical prolepsis,’ as he has related the journey, ver. 14 ff., 
only in a very summary manner. 

Ver. 24. According to the reading aA?’ ovdevic Aöyov momwönar THY puyiy 
rıulav éuavt@ (see the critical remarks), this verse is to be interpreted : But 
of no word do I account my soul, my life, worthy for myself, i.e. the preserva- 
tion of my life for my own personal interest is not held by me as worth speaking 
9." According to the Recepta, as also according to Lachmann, it would 
have to be taken as : but to nothing do I take heed, I do not trouble myself 
about any impending suffering, even my life is not reckoned to me valuable for 
myself. — oc TeAeıwoa: «.7.A.| purpose in this non-regarding of his own life : 
in order, not to remain stationary half-way, but to finish my course, etc.! 
— kai ryv dıakoviav K.r.A.] Expexegesis of the preceding figurative expres- 


— Ta Ev aith 


ı Hahn, Theol d. N. T. I. p. 412. 

2 Rom. vii 2; 1 Cor. vii. 27. 

3 Beza, Calvin, Calovius, Kypke, and oth- 
ers. 

4 Oecumenius, Theophylact, who put the 
comma after deden. 

5 Erasmus, Grotius, Wolf, Bengel, Morus. 

€Comp. Heinrichs, Kuinoel, de Wette, 
Lange, Ewald, Hackett. On Sedeuévos, comp. 
Plat. Rep. viii. p. 567 C, waxapia dpa . 
avaykp Seberar, 7 mpoorarrer, AUTO k.T.A, 

7 Plat. Phaed. p. 57 B; Soph. ZI. 418. 

5 Comp. xiii. 2, xxi. 4, 11. 

® Schneckenburger, p. 135. 

10 On tiziav, comp. Plat. Soph. p. 216 C: 


Tots wev SoKovow eivar Too pndevos Tirol, ToLs 
5 afıoı Tod mavtos, and on ovdevds Adyov, 
Herod. iv. 28 : Adyov a£évov (worthy of mention), 
Thuc. vi. 64. 2. 

11 On Aoyov movety twos, comp. Wetstein and 
Kypke ; and on Aoyov Exeıv Tivos (Lachmann), 
Herod. i. 62, i. 62, i. 115, al. (Schweigh. Zea. 
Herod. II. p. 76); Theocr. iii. 32; Tob. vi. 
155) 


12 On Spouos, comp. xiii. 25 ; 2 Tim. iv. 7; 
Gal. ii. 2; Phil. ii. 16; 1 Cor. ix. 24. On ds 
with the infinitive in the telic sense, see 
Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. 175, and in the 
Sachs. Stud. 1846, p. 60; Sintenis, ad Plut. 


Them. 26. Only here soin the N. T. 


390 CHAP. XX., 25-28. 


sion. — ro evayy. T. xap. r. Ocov] the knowledge of salvation, whose con- 
tents is the grace of God, manifested in Christ. Comp. xiv. 3. 

Ver. 25 points back to ver. 22, now representing the separation there an- 
nounced, for which vv. 23, 24 have prepared them, as one of perpetuity for 
the life in time. — éym] emphatic, as in ver. 22,-and with deep emotion. — 
The olda, bre ovKéte K.r.A.,! rests, according to ver. 23, on the conviction which 
he has now (vöv) obtained by the communications of the Holy Spirit re- 
ceived from city to city concerning the fate impending over him at Jerusa- 
lem, that the imprisonment and affliction there awaiting him would termi- 
nate only with his death. And he has not deceived himself! For the 
assumption that he was liberated from Rome and returned to the earlier 
sphere of his labours, is unhistorical.* But precisely in connection with 
the unfolding of his destination to death here expressed by him with such 
certainty, there passed into fulfilment his saying pointing to Rome,* how- 
ever little he himself might be able at this time to discern this connection ; 
and therefore, probably, the thought of Rome was again thrown tempora- 
rily into the background in his mind. The fact, that he at a later period 
in his imprisonment expected liberation and return to the scene of his 
earlier labours,‘ cannot testify against the historical character of our speech,® 
since he does not refer his oida in our passage to a divinely-imparted cer- 
tainty, and therefore the expression of his individual conviction at this 
time, spoken, moreover, in the excited emotion of a deeply agitated mo- 
ment, is only misused in support of critical prejudgments. - With this cer- 
tainty of his at this time,—which, moreover, he does not express as a sad 
foreboding or the like, but so undoubtedly as in ver. 29,—quite agrees the 
fact, that he hands over the church so entirely to the presbyters as he does 
in ver. 26 ff. ; nor do we properly estimate the situation of the moment, if 
we only assume, with de Wette, that Luke has probably thus composed the 
speech from his later standpoint after the death of the apostle. According 
to Baumgarten, II. p. 85 ff., who compares the example of King Hezekiah, 
the olda «.7.A. was actually founded on objective certainty: God had 
actually resolved to let the apostle die in Jerusalem, but had then gra- 
ciously listened to the praying and weeping of the Gentile churches. But 
in such passages as Philem. 22, there is implied no alteration of the divine 
resolution ; this is a pure fancy. — dueic ravrec, év oic dıjAdov] all ye among 
whom I passed through. In his deep emotion he extends his view; with 
this address he embraces not merely those assembled around him, nor 
merely the Ephesians in general, but at the same time, all Christians, 
among whom hitherto he had been the itinerant herald of the kingdom. 
In ver. 26 the address again limits itself solely to those present. 

Vv. 26, 27. Aı6] because, namely, this now impending separation makes 
such a reckoning for me a duty. — papripouac] I testify, I affirm.® — &v 77 ou. 
nuépa| ‘* hoc magnam declarandi vim habet,’’ Bengel: it was, in fact, the 


1 He does not say: that I shall not see you, Sxix: 21. 
but he says: that you shall not see me. He 4 Philem. 22; Phil. ii. 24. 
has not his own interest in view, but theirs. 5 Baur, Zeller. 


2 See on Rom. Introd. § 1. 6 See on Gal. v. 3. 


ADDRESS TO THE ELDERS. 391 


parting day. —orı kadap. eiyu (see the critical remarks) : that I am pure from 
the blood of all! i.e. that I am free of blame in reference to each one, if he, 
on account of unbelief, falls a prey to death, z.e. to the eternal arwäeıa. 
Tach one is affected by his own fault ; no one by mine. kahapöc anö? is not a 
Ilebraigm, 07 'P} ; even with Greek writers xadap. is not merely, though 
commonly, joined with the genitive,* but also sometimes with a7é.*—- ov 
yap vreoreı).) brought forward once more in accordance with ver. 20; so 
extremely important was it to him, and that, indeed, as the decisive 
premiss of the xadapöc eiwe x.7.A. — ryv Bovdgv rov Oeov] the divine counsel 
kar’ é£oyHv, t.e. the counsel of redemption, whose complete realization is 
the Bacidera tov Gov, the Messianic kingdom ; hence here dvayy. . . . Oeov, 
in ver. 24 dıauapr. . . . Ocov, and in ver. 25 knpvoo. r. BaoıA. r. Ocov, denote 
one and the same great contents of the gospel, although viewed according 
to different aspects of its nature. — räcav] the whole, without suppressing, 
explaining away, or concealing aught of it. 

Ver. 28. Oiv| Therefore, since J am innocent, and thus the blame would 
be chargeable on you. — éavtoic «x. 7. 7. moıuvio] in order that as well ye your- 
selves, as the whole church,® may persevere in the pure truth of the gospel.® 
On the prefixing of éavtovc, comp. 1 Tim. iv. 16. — ro mv. r. ay. &0ero] This 
was designed to make them sensible of the whole sacredness and responsi- 
bility of their office. The Holy Spirit ruling in the church has Himself 
appointed the persons of the presbyters, not merely by the bestowal of His 
gifts on those concerned, but also by His effective influence upon the recog- 
nition and appreciation of the gifts so bestowed at the elections.’ — éri- 
körove, also very common with classical writers, as overseers, as stewards,® 
denotes the officiul function of the presbyters, ver. 17, and is here chosen, 
not mpecBurépovc, because in its literal meaning it significantly corresponds 
to the romaiverr. ‘‘Ipso nomine admonet velut in specula locatos esse,’’ 
etc., Calvin.” The figurative * zocuaivecv comprehends the two elements, of 
official activity in teaching, further specially designated in Eph. iv. 11 5" 
and ef the oversight and conduct of the discipline and organization of the 
church. For the two together exhaust the émoxoreiv.*? — On r. ExkAno. Tov 
Kvpiov see the critical remarks.'* With the reading rov Oecot this passage 
was a peculiarly important locus for the doctrine of the divinity of Christ 
and the communicatio idiomatum against the Socinians. See especially Calo- 
vius. — fv mepteromoaro «.t.A.| which He has acquired, for His possession, by 
His own blood, by the shedding of which He has redeemed believers from 


1 Comp. on xviii. 6. ® How litile ground this passage gives for 
2 Tob. iii. 14. the hierarchical conception of the spiritual 
3 Bernhardy, p. 174. office, see on Eph. iv. 11; Höfling, Körchen- 
4 Kypke, II. p. 108 f. verf. p. 269 f. 
5 Luke xii. 32 ; John x. 1 ff. 10 Tga. xl. 11; Jer. ii. 8; Ezek. xxxiv. 2; 
§ See vv. 29, 30. John x. 14, xxi. 15; and see Dissen, ad Pind. 
7 See on xiv. 23. Comp. xiii. 2, 4. Ol. x. 9, p. 124. 
8 The comparison of the Athenian émtoxo7roe 11 Comp. 1 Tim. iii. 2. 

in dependent cities, with a view to explain 12 1 Pet. v. 2. 

this official name (Rothe, p. 219 f.; see on 13 Comp. Rom. xvi. 16; Matt. xvi. 18. 

these also Hermann, Staatsalterth. § 157. 8), 14Eph. 1. 14; Tit. ii. 14 ; 1 Pet. ü. 9. 


introduces something heterogeneons. 


392 CHAP. XX., 29-35. 


the dominion of the devil and acquired .them for Himself as heirs of His 
eternal salvation. ‘‘ Hic ergo grex est pretiosissimus,’’ Bengel.! 

Vv. 29, 30. ’Eyö] with similar emphasis, as in ver. 25: After my depart- 
ure—I know it—not only will enemies from without intrude among you— 
Ephesian Christians, as whose representatives the presbyters were present— 
who will be relentlessly destructive to the welfare of the church ; but also 
within the church itself, out of the midst of you, will men with perverse 
doctrines arise. — That by the very common figure of ravenous? wolves* is 
not meant. as Grotius supposes, persecutio sub Nerone, but false teachers 
working perniciously, is rendered probable by the very parallelism of ver. 
30, and still more certain by the relation of ciceAcic. to uera THY ägıfiv pov, 
‘according to which Paul represents his presence as that which has hitherto 
withheld the intrusion of the Av«o:,—a connection which, in the case of its 
being explained of political persecutors, would be devoid of truth. — a@éie 
is here not arrival, as almost constantly with Greek writers, but departure, 
going away.* Paul does not specially mean his death, but generally his 
removal,° on which the false teachers necessarily depended for the assertion 
of their influence. Moreover, his prediction without doubt rests on the 
observations and experiences * which he had made during his long ministry 
in Ephesus and Asia. He must have known the existence of germs in 
which he saw the sad pledge of the truth of his warning ; and we have no 
reason to doubt that the reality corresponded to this prediction. At the 
time of the composition of the Epistle to the Ephesians, the false teachers 
may not yet have been working in Ephesus itself, but in Colossae and its 
neighbourhood these — they were Judaists of an Essene-Gnostic -type — 
had made themselves felt,” and in Asia Minor generally the heretics of the 
First Epistle of John and probably also of that of Jude are to be sought, 
not to mention those of the Apocalypse and Pastoral Epistles. The- 
indefinite and general expressions, in which the false teachers are here 
described, correspond to the character of prophetic foresight and prediction. 
According to Zeller, a later writer has by these sought to conceal his other- 
wise too glaring anachronism ; whereas Baur finds the sectarian character, 
such as it existed at most toward the close of the first century, so definitely 
delineated, that he, from this eireumstance, recognizes a vatieinium post 
eventum ! Thus the same expression is for the one too indefinite, and for 
the other too definite ; but both arrive at the same result, which must be 
reached, let the Paul of the Book of Acts speak as he will. — arooräv «.r.A.] 
to draw away, from the fellowship of true believers, after them. ‘‘ Charac- 
ter falsi dogtoris, ut velit ex se uno pendere discipulos,’’ Bengel.® 

Ver. 31. Tpyyopeire ‘‘ verbum pastorale,’? Bengel,’—and that, encouraged 
by the recollection of my own example, uvmuovevovreg, btu K.T.A. — Tpıeriav] 


1 Comp. on Eph. i. 14; 1 Cor. vi. 20, vii. 23; 5 Discessionem, Vulgate. 
1 Pet. i. 7, 19. § Comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 9. 
2 Vehementes, comp. Bapvraros avraywvıarns, 7 See Introduction to Colossians, § 2. 
Xen. Ages. 11, 12. 8 On oricw ait., comp. Vv. 37. 
3 Matt. vii. 15; Luke x.3; John x. 12, ® Comp. mpocéxeTe cavTols Kal TayTL TH 


* Dem. 58, pen.; Herod. vii. 58. moLu.vio, Ver. 28. 


DUTY OF ELDERS. 393 


See on xix. 10. — pera dakpiwv] extorted both by afflictions! and by the 
sympathetic fervour with which Paul prosecuted his quite special (éva 
Ekaorov) pastoral care.? — vixra x. yuép.]| See on Luke ii. 37. vi«ra is here 
placed first, because it most closely corresponds to the figurative ypyyopeire. 
— As to the idea of vovdeoia, admonition, see on Eph. vi. 4. 

Ver. 32. And now I commend you to God (xiv. 23) and to the word of His 
grace (ver. 24),—entrust you to Him to protect and bless you, and to the 
gospel to be the rule of your whole conduct, —to Him who is able to build up, 
to promote the Christian life, and to give you inheritance, a share in the 
Messianic blessedness, among all who are sanctified, consecrated to God by 
faith. — ro dvvauévw| is, with the Vulgate, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, 
Wolf, Bengel, de Wette, and others to be referred to God ; so that a very 
natural hyperbaton occurs, according to which kai r@ Adyw tHe xäpıros avTow 
appears as an inserted annexation to the general and main element 76 02@ 
of an accessory idea, which was not to be separated from ro G<@, but 
which also does not prevent the continuance of the address by a more 
precise description of + Oc bearing on its object.” We should, in reading, 
lay the emphasis on 7q@ ®eo, and pass on more quickly over kalt ro Adyw . . . 
Others refer tw dvvau. to ro Aöyw, and understand the Aöyoc either 
correctly of the doctrine,‘ or erroneously, opposed to Luke’s and Paul’s 
mode of conception, of the personal, Johannean, Logos.’ But such a per- 
sonification of the saving doctrine,® according to which even the doüvar 
xAnpovouiav, evidently an act of God! is assigned to it, is without scriptural 
analogy.” — As to xAnpovouia, transferred from the allotted share in the pos- 
session of. Palestine (non) to the share of possession in the Messianic king- 
dom, see on Matt. v.5; Gal. iii. 18; Eph. i. 11.° 

Vv. 33-35. Paul concludes his address, so rich in its simplicity and 
deeply impressive, by urging on the presbyters the complete disinterested- 
ness and self-denial, with which he had laboured at Ephesus, as a rizog ° 
for similar conduct. Reason for this: not the obviating of a Judaistic 
reproach," not a guarding of the independence of the church in the 
world ;!? but the necessity of the avrılaußaveodaı tov aodevovvrwv, Ver. 39. — 
apy. 7 xpvo. 7 iuar.] specification of what are usually esteemed the most 
valuable temporal possessions.'* — airoi| without my needing to say it to 
you. —xal roic oboe wer éuov] Thus also for his companions, to their 
necessities, he applied the gain of his manual labour. —aira:| he shows 
them, and certainly they were not soft and tender. — ravra üredeıfa tuir, 
örı] either in all points 4 I have shown to you, by my example, that ; or, all things 


avrov. 


1 Ver. 19. 

22 Cor. xi. 29, ii. 4. 

3 Comp. Bernhardy, p. 459. 

4 Erasmus, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Lange, and 
others. 

5 Gomarus, Witsius, Amelot. 

s Jas.i. 21. 

7 Comp. Col.i.12 f.; Gal. iv. 7; Luke xii. 
32. [18. 

8 On ey T. yyıaca., comp. xxvi. 18; Eph. i. 


92 Thess. iii. 9. 

10 Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 4 ff.; 2 Cor. xi. 7 ff., xii 
14 ff, 2 Thess. iii. 8 ff. 

11 Olshausen, 

12 Baumgarten. 

13 Comp. Jas. v. 2, 3. 

14 1 Cor. x. 33 ; see on Eph. iv. 15; Lobeck, 
ad Aj. 1402; Kühner, § 557 A.4. Lachmann, 
whom Klostermann follows, refers mavra to 
ver, 34, as Beza already proposed. But if 


394 CHAP. XX., 35-88. 


I have showed to you, by my example, in reference to this, that, etc.! The for- 
mer is simpler. —oitw] so labouring, as I have done, so toiling hard.” Not: 
my fellow-labourers in the gospel,” which, at variance with the context, with- 
draws from oirwc its significance. It is the example-giving ovtwc.* — trav 
aodevovvrov] is, with Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Calovius, Er. Schmid, 
Bengel, and others, including Neander, Tholuck, Schneckenburger, Baum- 
garten, to be explained of those not yet confirmed in Christian principles and 
dispositions.° These might easily consider the work of one’teaching for 
pay as a mere matter of gain, and thus be prejudiced not only against the 
teacher, but also against the doctrine.° But if, on the other hand, the 
teacher gained his livelihood by labour, by such self-devotion he obviated 
the fall of the unsettled, and was helpful to the strengthening of their 
faith and courage.’ This is that avrılaußavsoduı tov aodevoivrov, in which 
Paul wished to serve as a model to other teachers and ecclesiastical rulers. 
Others? render it: that they should help the poor and needy by support ; ° 
which meaning would have to be derived not from the usus loguendi of 
aodev. taken by itself, but, with Kuinoel, ‘‘ qui non possunt laborando sibi 
ad vitam tuendam necessaria comparare,’’ from the context.'° But the recom- 
mendation of liberality is remote from the context; the faithfulness and 
wisdom of the teacher manifesting itself in gaining his own support by 
labour, of which the text speaks, must have a spiritual object, like the 
teaching office itself !!—not the giving of alms, but the strengthening of the 
weak in faith. The more naturally this meaning occurs, the less would 
Paul, if he had nevertheless meant the poor, have expressed himself by 
aodevorwvrov, but rather by rrwyav or a similar word. — uvnuovevem . 

AauBaver| and to be mindful of the saying of the Lord Jesus, namely, that He 
Himself has said: It is blessed—i.e. bliss-giving ; the action itself according 
to its moral nature, similarly to the knowing in John xvili. 3, is conceived 
as the blessedness of the agent—rather (potius) to give than receive. ‘*The 
two being compared, not the latter, but rather the former, is the paxapiov.”” 
The special application of this general saying of Christ is, according to the 
connection in the mind of the apostle, that the giving of spiritual benefits, 
compared with the taking of earthly gain as pay, has the advantage in con- 
ferring blessedness ; and the paxapidrye¢ itself is that of eternal life according 
to the idea of the Messianic recompense, Luke vi. 20 ff., 38, xiv. 14. — The 
explanatory ör., dependent on pryzov., adduces out of the general class of röv 
Ady. r. Kup. a single saying”? instead of all bearing on the point.—Whether 


so, Paul, in ver. 24, would evidently have 7 Comp. 2 Cor. xii. 14. 

said too much. especially on account of Kai Tots 8 Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, 

ovot pet Enod. et al., including Wetstein, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, 
1 Ort = cis Ereivo, örı, AS in John ii. 18, ix. Olshausen, de Wette, Hackett. 

17; 2Cor. i. 18; Mark xvi. 14, e¢ al. ® Comp. Eph. iv. 28. 
2 Comp. 1 Cor. iv. 12. 10 Comp. Arist. Pac. 636; Eur. Suppl. 433 ; 
3 Klostermann. Herod. ii. 88. See Valckenaer, ad Herod. viii. 
4 Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 24, 26; Phil. iii. 17. 51; and Raphel, Herod. in loc. 
5 Comp. Rom. xiv. 1, xv. 1; 1 Cor. ix. 22; 11] Cor. ix. 12. 

1 Thess. v. 14; 2 Cor. xi. 21. 12 Comp. xv. 15. 


§ 1 Cor. ix. 12. 


NOTES. 395 


Paul derived this saying, not preserved in the Gospels,! from oral or written 
tradition, remains undecided.—References to the same saying : Constitt. ap. 
iv. 8. 1: éel kai 6 Kipiog uaxapıov eimev eivar tov dudövra rep TOV Aaußavovra, 
perhaps also Clem. 1 Cor. 2: qd.0v dudövres 7 Aaußavovres. Analogous profane 
_ sayings’ may be seen in Wetstein. The opposite : avdyro¢ 6 didovc, euruync 0 
6 AawBavwv, in Athen. viii. 5. 

Vv. 36-38. What a simple, true,* tender, and affecting description ! — 
kategiaovv] denotes frequent and fervent kissing.* —dewpeiv] to behold, is 
chosen from the standpoint of the ödvvouevo.. On the other hand, in ver. 
25, beable. — xpoéreur.] of giving a convoy, as in xy. 3, xxi. 5. 


Notes BY AMERICAN EDITOR. 


(m?) After the uproar. Y. 1-3. 


Meyer correctly remarks this statement indicates the time, but not the 
motive, of the apostle’s departure, as he had previously determined to leave 
Ephesus, where he had remained longer than at any other city—three years. 
The extent of his success is attested by the conduct of Demetrius and his fel- 
low-craftsmen. The brief record given by Luke may be supplemented by a 
reference to the Epistles to the Corinthians, written about this time. The 
narrative condenses months of active labor into a single verse. The apostle 
having sent a deputation to Corinth, and also written a letter to that church, 
took an affectionate farewell of the church at Ephesus. He sailed from 
Ephesus to Troas, where, a door being opened, he preached for a time, while 
he awaited the arrival of Titus with tidings from Corinth. Titus came not, 
and the apostle, filled with anxiety as to the effects his severe letter might pro- 
duce, crossed over into Macedonia, where he met Titus, who brought tidings 
which relieved and gladdened the faithful, yet tender-hearted apostle, and was 
the occasion of a second letter to Corinth. Six years had elapsed since Paul 
first visited Macedonia, and was beaten and imprisoned at Philippi. He 
doubtless now revisited the scenes of his former labor ; and also during this 
period evangelized the western part of Macedonia, as he formerly had done the 
eastern. The entire province of Macedonia was evangelized, as the apostle had 
visited each of the four distriets into which it was divided. The three months 
he was in Greece—the province of Achaia— was spent mainly at Corinth, its 
capital. At this time and from this place he wrote the Epistle to the 
Romans, and probably the Epistle to the Galatians. When about to leave Cor- 
inth, the Jews entered into a conspiracy to take his life, probably when he 
was leaving the port. The plot being discovered, the apostle left by land, 
accompanied by several companions, among whom Luke seems to have been 
one, as the first person again appears in the narrative. When it is said that 


1 See on the dicta äypaba of Christ, Fabric. that which the presbyters received from it, as 
Cod. Apocr. N. T. pp. 321-335 ; Ewald, Jahrb. that which ‘‘ the reader of the Book of Acts is 


VI. 40 f., and @esch. Chr. p. 288. meant to receive from the previous narrative,” 
2 Artemidor. iv. 3. Zeller, p. 274. 
3 It borders on wantonness to affirm that 4 Comp. on Matt. xxvi. 49; Luke xv. 20. 


this impression of the speech is not so much 


396 CHAP. XX.—NOTES. 


his companions went into, or as far as Asia, “ it is not implied that they went 
no farther than to Asia ; Trophimus and Aristarchus and probably others ac- 
companied him to Jerusalem.’’ (Alford.) Luke remained with Paul at Phi- 
lippi till after the Passover. Whether Paul, in the exercise of his Christian 
liberty, kept the festival, as Meyer states, cannot be determined, though we 
do not think it probable. The rest of the company preceded the apostle to 
Troas, probably for the purpose suggested by Meyer. 


(n°) Tyv erkAmolav tov Kvpiov. V. 28. 


In his critical remarks Meyer discusses this reading at considerable length, 
and concludes that the evidence is in favor of xupiov. On the text he remarks : 
“ With the reading roi Ocoi, this passage was a peculiarly important locus for 
the doctrine of the divinity of Christ.’’ Gloag uses the reading of Tischendorf, 
kvpsov, but adds “not that, in itself, it seems preferable.’’ Six different read- 
ings of this passage are given by Davidson; only the two already mentioned are 
entitled to consideration. Alford, who formerly approved of the reading 
kvpiov, writes : “On the whole then, weighing the evidence on both sides, see- 
ing that it is more likely that the alteration should have been to kvpiov than 
to 8e00 ; more likely that the speaker should have used O¢od than xvpiov ; and 
more consonant to the evidently emphatic position of the word, I have, on 
final revision, decided for the received reading, church of God, which on first 
writing I had rejected.’’ 

Bloomfield gives the reading, ®eoö, and prefixes the words kwpiov kat. Plump- 
tre favors the received reading. Wordsworth inclines to ®eod. Hackett thinks 
the external testimony preponderates in favor of xvpiov; but Beov agrees best with 
the usage of Paul. The phrase “ church of God’’ occurs in the Epistles of Paul 
eight times, and “churches of God” three times ; but the expressions ‘‘ church 
of the Lord’ and “ church of Christ” never occur in his epistles, and “ churches of 
Christ’’ only once. Alexander, Abbot, Jacobus, and Schaff approve the received 
reading, and it is retained in the Revised Version. ‘‘ Oeov is now the undoubted 
reading of the Vatican, and of the newly discovered Sinaitic mss. Upon the 
whole, we are disposed to think that the preponderance of evidence is in favor 
of the reading riv exxAnoiav tov Be00.” (Gloag.) Though authorities are very 
evenly divided, we may unhesitatingly receive the text as in our English ver- 
sions. 


(0°) Paul’s farewell address at Miletus. V. 18-38. 


This address seems to be recorded just as it was delivered, in the words, we 
had almost said the tones, of the speaker. Taylor, speaking of this address, 
says :“‘ For depth of pathos and fervor of appeal it seems to me to be well-nigh 
unrivalled, even in Holy Writ. It quivers all through with emotion. There is 
love in every sentence, and a tear in every tone. We cannot read it without a 
choking utterance and a moistened eye.’’ Farrar writes thus : ‘‘ After these 
words, which so well describe the unwearied thoroughness, the deep humility, 
the perfect tenderness of his apostolic ministry, he knelt down with them all 
and prayed. They were overpowered with the touching solemnity of the 
scene. He ended his prayer amid a burst of weeping, and as they bade him 


NOTES. 39% 


farewell—anxious for his future, anxious for their own—they each laid their 
heads on his neck and passionately kissed him.’ ‘‘If Paul inspired intense 
hatreds, yet, with all disadvantages of person, he also inspired intense affec- 
tion.” 

Renan says : “ Then they all knelt and prayed. There was naught heard but 
a stifled sob. Paul’s words, ‘ Ye shall see my face no more,’ had pierced their 
hearts. In turn, the elders of Ephesus fell on the apostle’s neck and kissed 
him.” ‘ Tears are thrice mentioned in this short passage—tears of suffering 
(19) ; of pastoral solicitude (31) ; and of personal affection (37).’’ (Monod.) Paui 
was a man of strong convictions and great force of character ; but also pos- 
sessed of exquisite tenderness and a wealth of affection. If he had to endure 
the strongest enmities he also won for himself the deepest and most enduring 
friendships. At once so gigantic and so gentle, his personality was a great 
power, and seemed wholly to overshadow his companions and followers, 
though, in themselves, men of great excellence and worth, such as Timothy, 
Titus, Silas, Luke, and others. No man holds a higher place in the esteem and 
affection of the Christian world than Paul. 


398 © CRITICAL NOTES. 


CHAPTER XXI. 


Ver. 3. xatnyOnuev] ABENS, 34, Vulg. al. have karn7?douev. SoLachm, A gloss. 
— Ver. 4. Both avevp. de (Tisch.) and 70ts before ua. (which. Beng. Matth. 
Rinck condemn) have decided attestation. — aitod] A EG, 68, 73 have avrois; 
so Lachm. Alteration to suit oirıves. “ Ubicunque in s. Ss. alroü repertum est, 
scrupulum legentibus injecit,” Born. — avaß.] Lachm, Tisch. read £&rıß., ac- 
cording to important testimony. Rightly ; the more usual word was inserted. 
— Vv. 5, 6. mpoonv£äueha. Kal aoraoauevoı] Lachm. and Tisch. read mpooev£a- 
uevor ünmoraodueda, and then xai before &meß. SOABCEN, min. Rightly. 
The Recepia has arisen partly through a simplifying resolution of the participle 
mpocevéduevor, and partly through offence at the compound aruoraleodaı not 
elsewhere occurring. —- Ver. 6. éxé@yuev] Lachm. reads évé3., and Tisch. dveß. 
The witnesses are much divided. As, however, a form with N is at all events 
decidedly attested, A © &* having aNeß., and B E N** eNeB. ; avéBnuev is to 
be preferred, instead of which &veß., the more usual word for embarking, 
slipped in, and éze3. was inserted from ver. 2, comp. xxviii. 2. — Ver. 8. After 
222710. Elz. has of wept t. Haöiov (comp. xili. 13), against decisive testimony. 
With éfeA9. there begins a church-lesson. — Ver. 10. 7u6v is condemned by 
A B C H, min., as an addition. — Ver. 11. te aitov] ABC DEN, min. have 
&avrov. Approved by Griesb. Rinck, and adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born., and 
rightly on account of the decisive testimony. Orig. also testifies for it 
(gavTov yeıpav K.r.A.). —TaS xelpas x. T. mödas] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read r. nöd. 
k, T. x, preferred also by Rinck, following important witnesses (not A), but 
evidently a transposition, in accordance with the natural course of the action. 
— év 'Iepovo.] Born. reads «iS 'Iepovo., but only according to D, min. Chrys. 
Epiph. It arose from a gloss (Orig. : ameAhövra eis "Iepovo.).— Ver. 14. On 
decisive evidence read with Lachm. and Tisch. tod Kupiov ro OéAnua yivécAw.— 
Ver. 15. émiox.] Elz. Scholz read azoox., only according to min. ; so that it 
must be regarded as a mere error of transcription. The decidedly attested 
ériox. is rightly approved or adopted by Mill. Beng. Griesb. Matthaei, Knapp, 
Rinck, Lachm. Tisch. The readings rapaok. (C, 7. 69, 73) and droragapu. (D, 
Born.) are interpretations. — Ver. 20. deov] Approved by Griesb., and adopted 
by Lachm. Tisch., according to A B C EG 8, min. Chrys. Theophyl. and most 
vss. Elz. Scholz, Born. read kipiov, against these decisive witnesses.-—’ lovdai- 
wv) Lachm. Tisch. read év rois ’Iovdaioıs, which is to be adopted, according to 
A BCE, min. Vulg. Aeth. Copt. The &v 77 ’Iovdaia in D, Syr. Sahid. Jer. Aug. 
speaks also for this (so Born.). The Recepta was occasioned by the following 
TOV MENLOTEVKÖT@V, after Which accordingly in some Fathers ’Iovda/wv has found 
its place. N, Oec. and some min. have merely tév menior., which makes all 
these additions suspicious, yet the testimony is not sufficiently strong for their 
deletion. — Ver. 21. ravras] deleted by Lachm., according to A D* E, 13, Vulg. 
Copt. Jer. Aug. The omission appears to be a historical emendation, — Ver. 
24. yvdécovra] Elz. reads yvooı, in opposition to ABC DEX, min. Aug. Jer. 


VOYAGE TO TYRE. 399 


and some vss. A continuation of the construction of iva. — Ver. 25. Emeoreida- 
vev] Lachm. Born. read areoreihauev, according to B D, 40, and some vss. 
Rightly ; the Recepta is from xv. 20. —undev to un is wanting in A BX, 13, 40, 
81, and several vss. Condemned by Mill and Bengel, and deleted by Lachm. 
But if it had been added, the expressions of xv, 28 would have been used. On 
the other hand, the omission was natural, as the direct instruction und?v roıodrov 
Tnpeiv is not contained in the apostolic decree. — Ver. 28. The form ravrayz is, 
with Lachm. and Tisch., to be adopted according to decisive evidence ; it is 
not elsewhere found in the N. T. — Ver. 31. ovyr&xvraı] Lachm. and Born. read 
ovyxvvera, according to A B D & (in C. ver. 31 to xxii. 30 is wanting). With 
this preponderating testimony (comp. Vulg. : confunditur), and as, after ver. 30, 
.the perfect easily presented itself as more suitable, the present is to be pre- 
ferred. — Ver. 32. mapaiaß.] Lachm. reads Aaßov, only according to B. — Ver. 34, 
é8dwv] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read éxegdévovy, according to A B D E 8, min, 
which witnesses must prevail. — wu} Övuduevos 6€] Lachm. Tisch, Born. (yet 
the latter has deleted dé) read pj duvapévov 02 adrod, according to decisive testi- 
mony. The Recepta is a stylistic emendation. — So xpdfov, ver. 36, is to be 
judged, instead of which kp«govres is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be preferred. 


Vv. 1, 2. ’Arooraod.] denotes the painful separation, wrung from them 
by the consciousness of necessity.'— On the small island Cos, now Co, or 
Stanchio in the Aegean Sea, celebrated for its wine and manufacture of 
costly materials for dress, see Kuster.?— ra Ilärapa] a great seaport of 
Lycia, with an oracle of Apollo active only during the six winter months.* 
— dıarepov] which was in the act of sailing over. For avay6jva, comp. on 
xii. 13. 

(p*). Ver. 3. ’Avagavévrec 62 tiv Kirp.] but when we had sighted Cyprus. 
The expression is formed analogously to the well-known construction 
reriorevuaı TO evayyéAcov and the like.* — evarvuorv] an adjective to aurzv.” — 
eic Supiav] towards Syria. — karayeodaı, to run in, to land, the opposite of 
avaysodaı,’ often with Greek writers since the time of Homer. — éxeice yap 

. . youov| for thither the ship unladed its freight ; &xeioe denotes the diree- 
tion toward the city which they had in view in the unlading in the harbour. 
— arodoprıL.] does not stand pro futuro, in opposition to Grotius, Valcke- 
naer, Kuinoel, and others, but jv azog. means: it was in the act of its un- 
lading.® 

Ver. 4. ”Avevpövrec] See on Luke ii. 16. The Christians there (rove pad.) 
were certainly only few,° so that they had to be sought out in the great city 
of Tyre. ravrwv . . . réxvorc, ver. 5, also points to a small number of 
Christians. — dia tov mveuuaroc] so that the Holy Spirit, speaking within 
them, was the mediating occasion. The Spirit had testified to them that 
a fate full of suffering awaited Paul in Jerusalem, and this in their loving 


1 See on Luke xxii. 41. Gr. p. 164 (E. T. 189). [stein, 

2 De Co insula, Hal. 1833. On the accusa- 5 See Kühner, $ 685, and examples in Wet- 
tive form, see Locella, ad Xen. Eph. p. 165 f. 6 See on Gal. 1. 21. 

3 For its ruins, see Fellows, Asia Minor, p. ZENTREN. 125 aukeiv: dale 
219 f. 8 Comp. Winer, p. 328 (E. T. 439). 


4 Winer, p. 244 (E. T. 326) ; Buttmann, newt. 9 See xi. 19, xv. 3. 


400 CHAP. XXI, 5-9. 


zealous care they took as a valid warning to him not to go to Jerusalem. 
But Paul himself was more fully and,correctly aware of the will of the 
Spirit; he was certain that, in spite of the bonds and sufferings which the 
Spirit made known to him from city to city, he must go to Jerusalem, xx. 
Ze (EO N 

Vv. 5, 6. ’E£apricaı] cannot here denote to jit out,’ to provide the neces- 
saries for the journey, partly because the protasis: ‘‘ but when we fitted 
out in those days’’—not : had fitted out—would not suit the apodosis, and 
partly because in general there was no reason for a special and lengthened 
provisioning in the case of such a very short voyage. Hence we must 
adhere to the rendering usual since the Vulgate (expletis diebus) and Chry- 
sostum (rAypacar): but when it happened that we completed the seven days of 
our residence there, i.e. when we brought these days to aclose. And that é&ap- 
titey was really so used by later writers, is to be inferred from the similar 
use of araprtifew.? — odv yuvaiéi x. Texv.] the more readily conceivable and 
natural in the case of the small body of Christians after so long a stay. 
Baumgarten finds here the design of a special distinction of the church. — 
éxt tov alyıal.] on the shore, because this was the place of the solemn parting. 
Hammond, overlooking this natural explanation, imagined quite arbitrarily 
that there was a zpocevy7* on the shore. — arnoraoausda (see the critical 
remarks) : we took leave of one another.* Lachmann *® unnecessarily con- 
jectures avrnoraodueda. — eic ra idıa] to their habitations.°—W hether the ship 
prepared for the voyage (rö rAoiov) was the same in which they had arrived, 
cannot be determined. 

Ver. 7. Atavveıv] to complete entirely, only here in the N. T., but very often 
in classical writers, particularly of ways, journeys, and the like. But we, 
entirely bringing to an end (dtavicavtec 18 contemporaneous with karmvrnoauev) 
the voyage, arrived from Tyre, from which we had sailed for this last stage, 
at Ptolemais, from which we now continued our journey by land. —r. mAoöv] 
from Macedonia, xx. 6. IIroAsudic, the ancient 13)’, even yet called by the 
Arabs eG: by the Europeans St. Jean d’ Acre, on the Mediterranean Sea, be- 
longing to the tribe of Asher,” but never possessed by the Jews,® reckoned 
by the Greeks as belonging to Phoenicia,® and endowed by Claudius with 
the Roman citizenship. 

Vv. 8, 9. Kazodp.] See on viii. 40. — What induced the travellers to make 
their journey by way of Caesarea? Baumgarten thinks that, as representa- 
tives of the converted Gentiles, they wished to come in contact on the way 
only with Gentile churches. No; simply, according to the text, because 
Philip dwelt in Caesarea, and with this important man they purposed to 
spend some time in the interest of their vocation. — row evayy. dvtog Er TOV 
éxta] Since it was not his former position as overseer of the poor, but his 


1 Lucian, V. H. i. 33; Joseph. Antt. iii. 2. 6 Comp. on John xvi. 32, xix. 27; and see 


2; comp. 2 Tim. iii. 17. Valckenaer, p. 581 f. 
2 Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 447. 7 Judg. i. 13. 
3 See on xvi. 13. 8 Hence Hiros. Gittin. f. 43. 3: “In Acone 
4 Himerius, p. 184, est terra Israelitica et non.” [Welt 


5UPTaefa pax ® Ptol. v. 15; Strabo, xvi. p. 758; Plin. N. Z. 


TO CAESAREA. 401 


present position as evangelist, that made him so important to the travellers, 
namely, through his participation in the calling of a teacher, the words are 
not to be rendered : because he was one of the seven, vi. 5;* but the comma 
after evayy. is to be deleted (so also Tisch. Born.), and the whole is to be 
taken together : who was the evangelist out of the seven. He was that one of 
the seven, who had embraced and prosecuted the calling of an evangelist. 
The fact that he now dwelt at Caesarea presupposes that he no longer 
filled the office which he held in Jerusalem. Perhaps the peculiar skill in 
teaching which he developed as an emigrant? was the reason why he, 
released from his former ministry, entered upon that of an evangelist. To 
regard the words övroc éx r. éxta as an addition of the compiler,* and also 
to suspect 6 evayyekıoryc,* there is no sufficient reason. Hvangelists were 
assistant-missionaries, who, destined exclusively for no particular church, 
either went forth voluntarily, or were sent by the apostles and other teach- 
ers of apostolic authority now here and now there, in order to proclaim the 
evayyédwov of Jesus Christ, and in particular the living remembrances of 
what He taught and did,’ and thereby partly to prepare the way for, and 
partly to continue, the apostolic instruction.* — Euseb. iii. 31, 39, v. 24, fol- 
lowing Polycrates and Caius, calls this Philip an apostle, which is to be re- 
garded as a very early confusion of persons, going back even to the second 
century and found also in the Constitt. ap. vi. 7. 1, and is not to be disposed 
of, with Olshausen, to the effect that Eusebius used aröcroAoc in the wider 
sense, which considering the very sameness in name of the apostle and 
evangelist, would be very inappropriate. But Gieseler’s view also’ that 
the apostle Philip had four daughters, and that ver. 9 is an interpolation by 
one who had confounded the apostle with the deacon, is to be rejected, as 
the technical evidence betrays no interpolation, and as at all events our nar- 
rative, especially as a portion of the account in the jirst person plural, pre- 
cedes that of Eusebius. — @vyarépec raphévor] virgin ® daughters.” — rpoonr.] 
who spoke in prophetic inspiration, had the yapıoua of zpogyteia.'°—The whole 
observation in ver. 9 is an incidental remarkable notice, independent of the 
connection of the history; !! to the contents of which, however, on account of 


1 Comp. Winer, p. 127 (E. T. 168), de Wette. apostolus, sicut Philippus.’”’ See generally, 


2 viii. 5 f£., 26 ff. 

3 Zeller. 

4 Steitz in the Stud. w. Krit. 1868. p. 510. 

5 They had thus incommon with the apostles 
the vocation of the evayyeAideodar ; but they 
were distinguished from them, not merely by 
the eircumstance that they were not directly 
called by Christ, and so were subordinate to 
the apostles, 2 Tim. iv. 5. and did not possess 
the extraordinary specifically apostolic xapic- 
para; but also by the fact that their ministry 
had for its object less the summing up of the 
great doctrinal system of the gospel (like the 
preaching of the apostles) than the communi- 
cation of historical incidents from the ministry 
of Jesus. Pelagius correctly remarks: ‘Omnis 
apostolus evangelista, non omnis evangelista 


Ewald, p. 235f., and Jahrb. IL. p. 181 ff.— 
Nothing can be more perverse han, with Sepp, 
to interpret the appellation evangelist in the 
case of Philip to mean, that he had brought 
the Gospel of Matthew into its present form. 
The evangelists were the oral bearers of the 
gospel before written gospels were in exist- 
ence. 

6 Eph. iv. 11; Eus. 7.2. iii. 37. 

7 Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 189 ff. 

8 Intactae. 

On the adjective wapdevos, comp. Xen. 
Mem. i. 5.2: Svyatépas mapdevovs, Cyrop. iv. 
6. 9; Lobeck, ad Aj. 1190. 

107 5eeion xi. 27. 

11 If this circamstance was meant to be re- 
garded (in accordance with Joel iii. 1 [ii. 281) 


402 CHAP. XXI., 11-16. 


its special and extraordinary character, the precept in 1 Cor. xiv. 34, 1 Tim. 
ii. 12, is not to be applied ; nor yet is any justification of the life of nuns 
to be founded on it, with the Catholics.’ Baumgarten thinks that the 
virginity of the daughters corresponds to the condition of the church, 
which looks forward to her betrothal only in the future. This is exegetical 
trifling ? (R°). . 

Vv. 10, 11. ’Eruevövrov] without a subject (see the critical remarks).® 
— "Ayaßoc] There is no reason against the assumed identity of this person 
with the one mentioned in xi. 28. Luke’s mode of designating him, which 
does not take account of the former mention of him, admits of sufficient 
explanation from the special document giving account of this journey, 
which, composed by himself before his book, did not involve a reference 
to earlier matters, and was left by him just as it was ; nor did it necessarily 
require any addition on this point for the purpose of setting the reader 
right. — üpac] he took it up, from the ground, or wherever Paul had laid it. 
— önoac ... mödac]) as also the old prophets often accompanied their 
prophecies with symbolic actions.* On the symbol here, comp. John xxi. 
18. —éavroi] his own; for it was not his girdle, but Paul’s. This self- 
binding is to be conceived as consisting of two separate acts. — ro mv. T. ay. | 
whose utterance I, namely, as His organ express (s°). 

Vv. 12-14. Oi évrémior|] the natives, the Christians of Caesarea, only here 
in the N. T., but classical. — ri roveite kAaiovrec ;| What do ye, that ye weep ? 
Certainly essentially the same in sense with ri kAaiere ; but the form of the 
conception is different. Comp. Mark xi. 5, also the classical oiov roeig with 
the participle.® — x. ovrOp. u. T. kapd.] and break my heart, make me quite 
sorrowful and disconsolate. The ow#pürrew had actually commenced on 
the part of those assembled, but the firm éroiuwe éyw x.7.A. of the apostle 
had immediately retained the upper hand over the enervating impressions 
which they felt. ‘‘ Vere incipit actus, sed ob impedimenta caret eventu.’’ ® 
The verb itself is not preserved elsewhere, yet comp. Opürrew tiv poyfv, and 
the like, in Plutarch and others. — yap] refers to the direct sense lying at 
the foundation of the preeeding question: ‘‘do not weep and break my 
heart,” for I, I for my part, etc. Observe the holy boldness of conscious- 
ness in this éy. — eic 'Iepovo.]) Having come to Jerusalem." — irép tov ov. | 
See on v. 41, ix. 16. —jovydoaner] we left off further address.® —r. Kupiov] 
not ‘‘quod Deus de te decrevit,® but the will of Christ. The submission of 


as ‘fa sign of special grace with which the 
Holy Spirit had honoured this church in the 
unclean Caesarea”? (Baumgarten), Luke must 
of necessity have indicated this point of view. 
The suggestion, that we ought to be finding 
purposes everywhere without hint in the text, 
leads to extravagent arbitrariness. 

1 See Cornelius a Lapide. Comp. Luke ii. 
36. 

2 According to Clem. Al. Strom. vi. 52 (and 
in Euseb. iii. 30. 1), some of the daughters at 
least were married. 

3 Matthiae, § 563; Buttmann, newt. Gr.p. 


271 (E. T. 316). 

4Tsa. xx.; Jer. xiii.; Ezek. iv., al. See 
Grotius ; Ewald, Proph. I. p. 38. 

5 Heind. ad Plat. Charm. p. 166 C. 

6 Schaefer, ad Eur. Phoen., Pors.79. Comp. 
on Rom. ii. 4. 

7 Comp. viii. 40. Isaeus, de Dicaeog. hered. 
p. 55: moAcpov, eis Ov . .. amouvnakovat. 
Buttman, neut. Gr. p. 287 (E. T. 334). 

8 Comp. xi. 18. 

® Kuinoel and de Wette, following Chrysos- 
tom, Calvin, and others. 


PAUL AT JERUSALEM. 403 


his friends expresses itself with reference to the last words of the apostle, 
ver. 13, in which they recognised his consciousness of the Lord’s will. 

Vv. 15, 16. ’Erioxevao. | after we had equipped ourselves—praeparati, Vulg.— 
made ourselves ready ; ö.e. after we had put our goods, clothes, etc., in a 
“proper state for our arrival and residence in Jerusalem.! The word, oc- 
curring here only in the N. T., is frequent in Greek writers and in the 
LXX. Such an equipment was required by the feast, and by the intercourse 
which lay before them at the holy seat of the mother church and of the 
apostles. Others arbitrarily, as 1f éroftya stood in the text ;* ‘‘ sarcinas 
jumentis imponere,’ Grotius. — röv pabyr.| sc. twéc.* —dyovtec rap’ w Zevio- 
Pouev Mvac.| who brought us to Mnason, with whom we were to lodge in Jeru- 
salem. So correctly Luther. The dative Mvdc. is not dependent on 
ayovtec,* but to be explained, with Grotius, from attraction, so that, when 
resolved, it is: äyovrec mapa Mvdoova, rap’ © Eevicd.° The participle ayovrec 
indicates what they by ovr7A3. o. juiv not merely wished (infinitive), but at 
the same time did: they came with us and brought us, etc.°— Others’ 
take the sense of the whole passage to be: adducentes secum apud quem hos- 
pitaremnr Mnasonem. Likewise admitting of justification linguistically 
from the attraction ;* but then we should have to suppose, without any 
indication in the context, that Mnason had been temporarily resident at 
Caesarea precisely at that time when the lodging of the travellers in his 
house at Jerusalem was settled with him.—Nothing further is known of 
Mnason himself. The name is Greek,’ and probably he was, if not a Gen- 
tile-Christian, at any rate a Hellenist. Looking to the feeling which pre- 
vailed among the Jewish Christians against Paul,!° it was natural and pru- 
dent that he should lodge with such a one, in order that he should enter 
into further relations to the church. —apyaiw wad.] So much the more 
confidently might Paul and his companions be entrusted to him. He was 
a Christian from of old, not a veögvroc, 1 Tim. iii. 6; whether he had al- 
ready been a Christian from the first Pentecost, or had become so, possibly 
through connection with his countryman Barnabas, or in some other 
manner, cannot be determined. 


1 The erroneous reading amoox., though de- 
defended by Olshausen, would at most admit 
the explanation : after we had conveyed away 
our baggage (Polyb. iv. 81. 11; Diod. Sic. xiii. 
91; Joseph. Antt. xiv. 16. 2), according to 
which the travellers, in order not to go as 
pilgrims to the feast at Jerusalem encumbered 
with much luggage, would have sent on their 
baggage before them. The leaving behind of 
the superfluous baggage at Caesarea (Wolf, 
Olshausen, and others), or the laying aside of 
things unworthy for their entrance into and 
residence in Jerusalem (Ewald), would be 
purely imported ideas. Valckenaer, p. 584, 
well remarks : ‘‘Putidum est lectiones tam 
aperte mendosas, ubi verae repertae fuere, in 
sanctissimis libris relinqui.” 

2 Xen. Hell. vii. 2. 18. 


3 Winer, p. 548 (E. T. 787) ; Buttmann, newt. 
Gr. p. 138 (E. T. 158). 

4 In opposition to Knatchbull, Winer, p. 201 
(E. T. 268 f.), and Fritzsche, Conject. I. p. 42 ; 
and see on ii. 33. 

5 See on Rom. iv. 17. Bornemann, Schol. in 
Lue. p.177 (comp. on Rosenmiiller, Zepert. I. 
p. 253); Buttmann, p. 244 (E. T. 284); Dissen, 
ad Dem. de cor. p. 233 f. 

6 See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 773; Bernhardy, 
p. 417. 

7 Vulgate, Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, 
Wolf. 

8 Kühner, II. 508; Valckenaer, Schol. I. p. 
586 ; Hermann, ad Soph. El. 643. 681. 

9 Ael. V. H. iii. 19; Athen. vi. p. 264 C, 272 
B; Lucian, Philops. 22. 

10 vy, 20, 21. 


404 CHAP. XXI., 17-28. 


Vv. 17-19. Tevon.] having arrived at ; xiii. 5. — ol ade2goi} the Christians, 
to whom we came,—Mnason and others who were with him. It was not 
until the following day, ver. 18, that they, with Paul at their head, pre- 
sented themselves to the rulers of the church. Accordingly, there is not 
to be found in this notice, ver. 17, any inconsistency with the dissatisfac- 
tion towards Paul afterwards reported ;' and oi adeA9. is not to be inter- 
preted of the apostles and presbytyrs.” — civ juiv] witnesses to the historical 
truth of the whole narrative down to ver. 26: those who combat it are 
obliged to represent this ovv zum as an addition of the compiler, who 
wished ‘‘externally to attach ’’ what follows to the report of an eye-wit- 
ness.°— rpd¢ ’Iakwßov] the Lord’s brother, xii. 17. xv. 13. Neither 
Peter nor any other of the Twelve can at this time have been present in 
Jerusalem ; otherwise they would have been mentioned here and in the 
sequel of the narrative.*——dv] roirwr a. Usual attraction. 

Vv. 20, 21. The body of presbyters—certainly headed by its apostolic ® 
chief James as spokesman—recognizes with thanksgiving to God the merits 
of Paul in the conversion of the Gentiles, but then represents to him at 
once also his critical position towards the Palestinian Jewish-Christians, 
among whom the opinion had spread that he taught all the Jews living in 
the dıaomopa among the Gentiles, when preaching his gospel to them, apos- 
tasy from the law of Moses. This opinion was, according to the principles 
expressed by Paul in his Epistles,® and according to his wisdom in teaching 
generally, certainly erroneous ; but amidst the tenacious overvaluing of Mo- 
saism on the part of the Judaists, ever fomented by the anti-Pauline party, 
it arose very naturally from the doctrine firmly and boldly defended by 
Paul, that the attainment of the Messianic salvation was not conditioned by 
circumcision and the works of the law, but purely by faith in Christ. What 
he had taught by way of denying and guarding against the value put on 
Mosaism, so as to secure the necessity of faith, was by the zealous Judaists 
taken up and interpreted as a hostile attack, as a direct summons to apos- 
tasy from the Mosaic precepts and institutions. See Ewald, p. 563 ff., on 
these relations, and on the greatness of the apostle, who notwithstanding, 
and in clear consciousness of the extreme dangers which threatened him, 
does not sever the bond with the apostlic mother-church, but presents him- 
self to it, and now again presents himself precisely amidst this confluence 
of the multitude to the feast, like Christ on his last entrance to Jerusalem. 
— Bewpeic| is not, with Olshausen, to be referred to the number of the pres- 
byters present, who might represent, as it were, the number of believers: 
for only the presbyters of Jerusalem were assembled with James,’ but to the 
Judaean Christians themselves, Christians of the Jewish land, the view of 


1 Baur. time died, and risen, and ascended into heaven. 
2 Kuinoel. According to other forms of the variously- 
3 Zeller, p. 522. See, in opposition to this coloured legend, it occurred twelve years after 
wretched shift, Ewald, Jahrd. IX. p. 66. the death of Jesus. See Sepp, p. 68 ff. 
4 Nevertheless, on the part of the Catholics 5 Gal. i. 19. 
(see Cornelius a Lapide), ‘he presence of all ® See especially Rom., Gal., and 1 Cor. 


the apostles is assumed ; Mary having at that DVieErwlG: 


ADDRESS AND VOW. 405 


whose many myriads might present itself to Paul at Jerusalem in the great 
multitude of those who were there, especially at the time of the feast. — 
röcaı wupiadec| a hyperbolical expression! of a very great indefinable num- 
ber,? the mention of which was to make the apostle the more inclined 
to the proposal about to be made; hence we are not, with Baur,* to un- 
derstand orthodox Jews as such, believing or unbelieving. The words, 
according to the correct reading (see the critical remarks), import: how 
many myriads among the Jews there are of those who are believing, i.e. to how 
many myriads those who have become believers among the Jews amount. 
— (nAwral t. vöuov] zealous observers and champions of the Mosaic law.*— 
karnındnoav]) they have been instructed *® by Judaistic anti-Pauline teachers. 
Actual instruetion,® not generally audierunt,’ nor bare suspicion,* is expressed, 
— u mepiröuvew abrodc K.r.A.]|” according to the notion of commanding, 
which is implied in Aéywv.'!°—roic &8ecı] observing the Mosaic customs."!— The 
antagonism of Judaism to Paul is in this passage so strongly and clearly 
displayed, that the author, if his book were actually the treatise with a 
set purpose, which it has been represented as being, would, in quite an in- 
comprehensible manner, have fallen out of his part. In the case of such a 
cunning inventor of history as the author, according to Baur and Zeller, 
appears to be, the power of historical truth was not so great as to extort 
‘against his will ’’!? such a testimony at variance with his design. 

Vv. 22, 23. Tioöv Zorı;] What is accordingly the case? How lies then the 
matter 23 The answer tovro roincov has the reason for it in the first instance 
more precisely assigned by the preliminary remark, ravtwe . . . EAnAvdac : 
a multitude, of such Jew-Christians, must, inevitably will, come together, 
assemble around thee, to hear thee and to observe thy demeanour, for, etc. 
That James meant a tumultuary concourse, is not stated by the text, and 
is, on the contrary, at variance with the sanguine dei ; but Calvin, Grotius, 
Calovius, and many others erroneously hold that 7770. cuve20. refers to the 
convoking of the church, or to the united body of the different househoid- 
congregations—in that case ro 7276. must at least have been used. — eiyqv 
éy. é¢’ Eavr.] having a vow'? for themselves. This &0' Eavrov represents the 
having of the vow as founded on the men’s own wish and self-interest, and 
accordingly exhibits it as a voluntary personal vow, in which they were not 
dependent on third persons. The use of &9' &avrov in the sense of ‚for one- 
self, at one’s own hand,'and the like,'® is a classical one,'? and very common, 


1 But yet, comp. with i. 15, ii. 41, iv.4, Gal. must thus have continued to circumcise the 
j. 22, an evidence of the great progress which children that came to be born to them. 


Christianity had thus made in Palestine with 10 See on xv. 24. 

the lapse of time. 11 Comp. tov vonov dvAacowrv, ver. 23. The 
2 Comp. Luke xii. 1. dative is as in ix. 31. 
3T. p. 230. ed. 2. 12 Baur. 
4 Comp. Gal. 1. 14. 13 See on 1 Cor. xiv. 15; Rom. iii. 9. 
5 Luke i. 4; Acts xviii. 25; Rom. ii. 18; 1 14 So Lange. 

Cor. xiv. 19; Gal. vi. 6; Lucian, Asin. 48. 15 xviii. 18. [correct. 
° Comp. Chrysostom. 16S reads af’ cavrHy, a gloss substantially 
7 Vulg. 17 Xen. Anad. ii. 4. 10; Thuc. v. 67. 1, viii. 
8 Zeller. 8. 11. q [p. 296. 


® The Jewish-Christians zealous for the law 18 Hermann, ad Viger. p. 859; Kühner, II. 


406 CHAP. XXL, 24-27. 


A yet more express mode of denoting it would be : abroi 26’ £avrov. With 
this position of the vow there could be the less difficulty in Paul’s taking 
it along with them ; no interest of any other than the four men themselves 
was concerned in it. Moreover, on account of ver. 26, and because the 
point here concerned a usage appointed in the law of Moses, otherwise than 
at xviii. 18, we are to understand a formal temporary Nazarite vow, under- 
taken on some unknown occasion.! 

Ver. 24. These take to thee, bring them into thy fellowship, and become with 
them a Nazarite—ayvictyr, be consecrated, LXX. Num. vi. 3, 8, corresponding 
to the Hebrew V10—and make the expenditure for them, Er’ avtoic, on their 
account,” namely, in the costs of the sacrifices to be procured.* ‘* More 
apud Judaeos receptum erat, et pro insigni pietatis officio habebatur, ut in 
pauperum Nasiraeorum gratiam ditiores sumtus erogarent ad sacrificia, 
quae, dum illi tonderentur, offerre necesse erat,’? Kypke.* The attempt of 
Wieseler,° to explain away the taking up of the Nazarite vow on the part 
of the apostle, is entirely contrary to the words, since dyvifecha, in its em- 
phatic connection with civ auroic, can only be understood according to the 
context of entering into participation of the Nazarite vow, and not generally 
of Israelitish purification by virtue of presenting sacrifices and visiting the 
temple, asin John xi. 55. —iva £vpyo.] contains the design of darav. Er’ 
aur., in order that they, after the fulfilment of the legal requirement had 
taken place, might have themselves shorn, and thus be released from their 
vow. The shearing and the burning of the hair of the head in the fire of 
the peace-offering, was the termination of the Nazaritic vow.°— kai yvooov- 
raı x.t.A.| and all shall know: not included in the dependence on iva, as in 
Luke xxii. 30. — op] as in ver. 19. —ovdév Eorı] that nothing has a place, is 
existent, so that all is without objective reality.’ — kai airéc] also for thy 
own person, whereby those antinomistic accusations are practically refuted. 
On oro:yeiv, in the sense of conduct of life, see on Gal. iv. 25. 

Ver. 25. ‘ Yet the liberty of the Gentile Christians from the Mosaic law 
remains thereby undiminished ; that is secured by our decree,’’ chap. xv. 
The object of this remark is to obviate a possible scruple of the apostle as 
to the adoption of the proposal. — jueic amecreiAauev (see the critical 
remarks), we, on our part, have despatched envoys, after we had resolved that 
they have to observe no such thing, nothing which belongs to the category of 
such legal enactments. The notion of deiv® is implied in the reference of 
kpivavrec, necessarium esse censuimus.® — ei un ovAaoosodaı k.T.A.] except that 
they should guard themselves from, etc.” On ovAaoosoYai rı Or rıva, to guard 
oneself from, comp. 2 Tim. iv. 15.1! — This citation of the decree of the 


1 Num. vi., and see on xviii. 18. See on such 5p. 105 ff., and on Gal. p. 589. 
vows, Kiel, Archaol. I. § 67; Oehler in Her- 6 See Num. vi. 18. 
zog’s Encykl. X. p. 205 ff. 7 Comp. on xxv. 11. 
2 See Bernhardy, p. 250. 8 See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 753 f£.; Schoem, 
3 Num. vi. 14 ff. ad Is. p. 397 f. 
4 See Joseph. Antt. xix. 6.1. Bell. ii. 15.1; ® Comp. ver. 21. 
Mischn. Nasir ii. 5.6; Wetstein, ön loc.; also 10 See xv. 28. [vii. 130. 


Oehler, lc. p. 210. 11 Wisd.i. 11; Ecclus. xix. 9; Herod. 1. 108, 


NAZARITE VOW. 40% 


apostolic synod told Paul wh:t was long since accurately known to him, 
but was here essentially pertinent to the matter. And for Paul himself 
that portion of the contents of the decree which was in itself indifferent 
was important enough, in view of those whose consciences were weak,! to make 
him receive this reminiscence of it now without an express reservation of 
his higher and freer standpoint, and of his apostolic independence, —a 
course by which he complied with the dovieverv To kaıpo, Rom. xii. 11. 

Vy. 26, 27. James had made his proposal to Paul—by a public observance 
of a custom, highly esteemed among the Jews, and consecrated by Moses, 
practically to refute the accusation in question—in the conviction that the 
accusation was unfounded, and that thus Paul with a good conscience, 
without contradiction of his principles, could accept the proposal.? And 
Paul with a good conscience accepted it; in which case it must be pre- 
sumed that the four men also did not regard the Nazarite vow as a work of 
justification ;* otherwise Paul must at once on principle have rejected the 
proposal, in order not to give countenance to the fundamental error, op- 
posed to his teaching, of justification by the law, and not to offer resistance 
to Christ Himselt as the end of the law.* In fact, he must have been alto- 
gether convinced that the observance of the law was not under dispute, by 
those who regard him as an opponent of it, in the sense of justification by 
the law ; otherwise he would as little have consented to the proposal made 
to him as he formerly did to the circumcision of Titus ; and even the furnish- 
ing of explanations to guard his action, which Schneckenburger ° supposes 
that we must assume, would not have sufficed, but would rather have 
stamped his accommodation as a mere empty show. Moreover, he was pre- © 
cisely by his internal complete freedom from the law in a position, without 
moral self-offence, not only to demean himself as, but really to be, a gvido- 
owv Tov vöuov, Where this ouAdoosıv was enjoined by love, which is the fulfil- 
ment of the law in the Christian sense,* as here, seeing that his object was 
—as um Ov avtoc Wd vöuov, but as éEvvouog Xpsorov—to become to the Jews ac 
’Iovdaioc, in order to win them.” Thus this work of the law—although to 
him it belonged in itself to the ororyeia tod xoouov *—became a form, deter- 
mined by the circumstances, of exercising the love that fulfils the law, 
which, however different in its forms, is imperishable and the completion 
of the law.’ The step, to which he yielded, stands on the same footing 


11 Cor. viii. 1 ff.; Rom. xiv. 1 ff. 

2 For if James had, in spite of Gal. ii. 9, re- 
garded Paul as a direct adversary of Mosaism. 
he would, on account of what he well knew 
to be Paul’s decision of character, have cer- 
tainly not proposed a measure which the lat- 
ter could not but have immediately rejected. 
It remains possible, however, that, though 
not in the case of James himself, yet among 
a portion of the presbyters there was still not 
complete certaınty, and perhaps even differ- 
ent views prevailed with regard to what was 
to be thought of that accusation. In this case, 
the proposal was a test bringing the matter to 


decisive certainty, which was very correctly 
calculated in view of the moral stedfastness 
of the apostle’s character. 

3 They were still weak brethren from Juda- 
ism, who still clave partially to ceremonial 
observances. Calvin designates them ar nov- 
ices, With a yet tender and not fully formed 
faith. 

* Rom. x. 4. 

5p. 65. 

6 Rom. xiii. 8, 10. 

71 Cor. 1x. 19 ff. 

SGaltives 2 1COle ll. S. 

9 Matt. v 17. 


408 CHAP, XXI., 27-29. 


with the circumcision of Timothy, which he himself performed,! and is 
subject essentially to the same judgment. The action of the apostle, there- 
fore, is neither, with Trip, following van Hengel,* to be classed as a weak 
and rash obsequiousness, this were indeed to Paul, near the very end of his 
labours, the moral impossibility of a great hypocrisy ; nor, with Thiersch, 
are we to suppose that he in a domain not his own had to follow the direc- 
tion of the bishop ;* nor, with Baumgarten,‘ are we to judge that he, by 
here externally manifesting his continued recognition of the divine law, 
“ presents in prospect the ultimate disappearance of his exceptional stand- 
point, his thirteenth apostleship,’’° which there is nothing in the text to 
point to, and against which militates the fact that to the apostle his gospel 
was the absolute truth, and therefore he could never have in view a re-es- 
tablishment of legal customs which were to him merely oxıa tov peAAdvtwr.® 
Not by such imported ideas of interpreters, but by a right estimate of the 
free standpoint of the apostle,’ and of his love bearing all things, are we 
prevented from regarding his conduct in this passage, with Baur, Zeller, 
and Hausrath, as un-Pauline and the narrative as unhistorical.* — ovr abroi¢ 
ayvıodeic] consecrated with them, i.e. having entered into participation of 
their Nazarite state, which, namely, had already lasted in the case of these 
men for some considerable time, as ver. 23 shows. They did not therefore 
only now commence their Nazarite vow,’ but Paul agreed to a personal par- 
ticipation in their vow already existing, in order, as a joint-bearer, to bring 
to a close by taking upon himself the whole expense of the offerings. Ac- 
cording to Nasir. i, 3,!° a Nazarite vow not taken for life lasted at least 
thirty days, but the subsequent accession of another during the currency of 
that time must at least have been allowed in such a case as this, where the ~ 
person joining bore the expenses. — eioneı eic r. iep.] namely, toward the 
close of the Nazarite period of these men, with which expired the Nazarite 
term current in pursuance of the civ abrtoi¢g ayvıodeic for himself. — drayyéA- 
dor] notifying, namely, to the priests," who had to conduct the legally-ap- 
pointed sacrifices,’ and then to pronounce release from the vow.'® The con- 
nection yields this interpretation, not: omnibus edicens," or > with the help 
of friends spreading the news, which in itself would likewise accord with 
linguistic usage.!° — rip ExmAnpwov Tov quep. T. dyv.] i.e. he gave notice that 
the vowed number of the Nazarite days had quite expired, after which only the 
concluding offering was required. This idea is expressed by éwe ov mpoc- 
qvéxSy k.7.4., which immediately attaches itself to tA éxrAfpwow x.t.A. : the 


I xvi. 3. {981 ff. 11 Comp. Thue. vii. 73. 4 ; Herodian, 11. 2. 5; 
2In the Godsgeleerd. Bijdräzen, 1859, p. Xen. Anab.i 6. 2. 
3 But see Gal. ii. 6. 12 Num. vi. 13 ff. 
411. p. 149. 13 The compound (internuntiare) is purpose- 
5 Rom. xi. 25 ff. ly chosen, because Paul with his notice acted 
8691.11. 1% as internuntius of the four men. So com- 
7 1 Cor. 1ii. 21 ff. monly écayyeAAey is used in Greek writers, 
* See, on the other hand, Neander, p. 485 ff. where it signifies to nofify, to make known. 
Lekebusch, p. 275 ff.; Schneckenburger in the Comp. also 2 Mace. i. 33. 
Stud. u. Krit. 1855, p. 566 ff. 14 Grotius. 
® Neander. 15 Bornemann. 


40 Comp. Joseph. Beil. ii. 15. 1. 1° Luke ix. 60; Rom. ix. 17, 


FULFILMENT OF THE VOW. 409 


Sulfilment of the Nazarite days, until the offering for each individual was pre- 
sented by them, so that &wc ob tpoonvéx Sy x.7.2. contains an objective more pre- 
cise definition of the éxzAjpwor added from the standpoint of the author: 
which fulfilment was not earlier than until there was brought, etc. Hence, 
Luke has expressed himself not by the optative or subjunctive,! which 
Lachmann, Praef. p. 1x., has conjectured, but by the indicative aorist, ‘the 
fulfilment up to the point that the presentation of the offering took place.’ 
Wieseler arbitrarily * makes éwe od dependent on cioneı: 7d iepdv, supplying 
"and remained there.’’—Observe, further, that in aurov Paul himself is now 
included, which follows from ovr avroic ayvıodeic, as well as that évdc éxdorov 
is added, because it is not one offering for all, but a separate offering for 
each, which is to be thought of (T°). — Ver. 27. ai éxra ju£paı] is commonly 
taken as: the seven days, which he up to the concluding sacrifice had to spend 
under the Nazarite vow which he had jointly undertaken, so that these days 
would be the time which had still to run for the four men of the duration 
of their vow. But against this may be urged, first, that the ZxrAjpooıc tov 
nu. T. ayv., Ver. 26, must in that case be the future fulfilment, which is not 
said in the text; and, secondly and decisively, that the ai éxra ju., with 
the article, would presuppose a mention already made of seven days.’ Text- 
ually we can only explain it as: the well-known seven days required for this 
purpose,* so that it is to be assumed that, as regurds the presentation of the 
offerings,° very varied in their kind, the interval of a week was usual. Incorrect, 
because entirely dissociated from the context, is the view of Wieseler,® that 
the seven days of the. Pentecostal week, of which the last was Pentecost itself, 
are meant. So also Baumgarten, and Schafl.” See, on the other hand, 
Baur,* who, however, brings out the seven days by the entirely arbitrary 
and groundless apportionment, that for each of the five persons a day was 
appointed for the presentation of his offering, prior to which five days we 
have to reckon one day on which James gave the counsel to Paul, and a 
second on which Paul went into the temple. On such a supposition, be- 
sides, we cannot see why Luke, in reference to what was just said, ixép évo¢ 
éxdotov avtov, should not have written: ai wévte yuépat.—oi ano Tr. "Aclac 
’Iow).] * Paulus, dum fidelibus—the Jewish-Christians—placandis intentus 
est, in hostium—the unconverted Asiatic Jews—furorem incurrit,’’ Calvin. 
How often had those, who were now at Jerusalem for the feast of Pente- 
cost, persecuted Paul already in Asia !— iv ro iepo] To see the destroyer 
of their ancestral religion in the temple, goaded their wrath to an outbreak. 
—ovvéyeov] Xix. 32. 

Vv. 28, 29. T. rörov rovr.] vi. 14. — éte re kai "EAAyvac x.7.4.| and, besides, 
he has also, further, in addition thereto, brought Greeks, Gentiles, into the 
temple. As to re xai, see on xix. 27. That by ro iepdv we have to under- 


I Comp. xxiii. 12. jam paene expletis,’ etc.; also Ewald, p. 571. 
2 Comp. already Erasmus, Paraph. 5 According to Num. vi. 13 ff. 

3 Comp. Judith viii. 15; comp. vii. 30. 6 p. 110. and on Gal. p. 587; comp. Beza. 
4Comp. Frasmus. Paraphrase: “ Totum 7 p. 243 ff. 


hoc septem die us erat peragendum ; quibus 8 In the theol. Jahrb. 1849, p. 482 ff. 


410 CHAP. XXI., 30-38. 


stand the court of the Israelites,! is self-evident, as the court of the Gentiles 
was accessible to the Greeks.? —"EAAnvac] the plural of category, which 
ver. 29 requires ; so spoken with hostile intent. — Ver. 29 is not to be made 
a parenthesis. — joav yap mposwpaköreg k.r.A.] there were, namely, people, who 
had before, before they saw the apostle in the temple, ver. 27, seen T’ro- 
phimus in the city with him. Observe the correlation in which the rpoewp.* 
stands with Yeaoduevor, and the &v rH möReı with év ro iep@ on the one hand, 
and with eic rö iepdv on the other. So much the more erroneous is it to change 
the definite zpo, before, into an indefinite formerly, which Otto* dates back 
even four years, namely, to the residence in Jerusalem mentioned in xviii. 
22. Beyond doubt the zpo does not point back farther than to the time of 
the present stay in Jerusalem, during which people had seen Trophimus 
with Paul in the city, before they saw the latter in the temple. — Tpdg.pov 
tov ’Eo£orov] see xx. 4. Among those, therefore, who accompanied the 
apostle äypı t7¢ ’Aciac, Trophimus must not have remained behind in Asia, 
but must have gone on with the apostle to Jerusalem.* — évéufov| The par- 
ticular accusation thus rested on a hasty and mistaken inference ; it was 
an erroneous suspicion expressed as a certainty, to which zealotry so easily 
leads ! — öv évéuufov örı] comp. John viii. 54. 

Ver. 30. "E£o rov iepov] in order that the temple enclosure might not be 
defiled with murder ; for they wished to put Paul to death, ver. 32. Ben- 
gel and Baumgarten hold that they had wished to prevent him from taking 
refuge at the altar. But the right of asylum legally subsisted only for 
persons guilty of unintentional manslaughter.® — éxreio3.] by the Levites. 
For the reason why, see above. Entirely at variance with the context, 
Lange’ holds that the closing of the temple intimated the temporary sus- 
pension of worship. It referred only to Paul, who was not to be allowed 
again to enter. 

Vv. 31-33. But while they sought to kill him, to beat him to death, ver. 
32, information came up, to the castle of Antonia, bordering on the north- 
west side of the temple, to the tribune of the Roman cohort.* ° — ro xuArapxw] 
asimple dative, not for pic rov x. — &r' aitoic] upon them." — éxéd. dedjva] 
because he took Paul to be an at that time notorious insurgent,” abandoned 
to the self-revenge of the people. In order, however, to have certainty on 


ıOn the screen of which were columns, 
with the warning in Greek and Latin : un deiv 
aAAsbvAov Evros TOD ayiov mpoorevar, Joseph. 
Bell. v.5. 2. 

2 Lightfoot, ad Matth. p. 58 f. 


5 Comp. on xxvii. 2. 

6 Therefore they would hardly suppose that 
Paul would fly to the altar. Besides, they 
had him sure enough! See Ex. xxi. 13, 14; 
1 Kings il. 28 ff Comp. Ewald, Alterth. p. 


3 The zpo is not local, as in ii. 25 (my former 
interpretation), but, according to the context, 
temporal. The usus loguendi alone cannot 
here decide, as it may beyond donbt be urged 
for either view; see the lexicons. So also is 
it with mpoideiv. The Vulgate, Erasmus, 
Luther, Castalio, Calvin, and others neglect 
the zpo entirely. Beza correctly renders: 
antea viderant. 

4 Pastoralbr. p. 284 ff. 


228 f. 

7 Apostol. Zeitalt. II. p. 306. 

® Claudius Lysias, xxiii. 26. 

® On dacıs, comp. Dem. 793. 16. 1323. 6; 
Pollux, viii. 6. 47 f.; Susannah 55; and see 
Wetstein. [II. p. 253. 

10 See Bornemann and Rosenmiiller, Repert. 

11 On kararpexeıv, fo run down, comp. Xen. 
Anab. v. 4. 23, vii. 1. 20. 

12 Ver. 38. 


ARREST OF PAUL. 411 


the spot, he asked, the crowd : tic ay ein kat ri &orı memomk.] who he might be, 
subjective possibility, and of what he was doer —that he had done something, 
was certain to the inquirer.! — eis ryv mapeußoAyv] in castra,? i.e. to the fixed 
quarters of the Roman soldiery, the military barracks of the fortress.? 

Vv. 35, 36. 'Eri r. avaßadu.] when he came to the stairs leading up to 
the fortress.* See examples of the form Batudc, and of the more Attic 
form Bacudc, in Lobeck.’— ovvéBy Baoras. auröv] brings forward what took 
place more markedly than the simple éGaorafero. Either the accusative, as 
here, or the nominative may stand with the infinitive.* — aipe aurov) The 
same cry of extermination as in Luke xxiii. 18.” On the plural «pafovrec, 
see Winer.*® 

Vv. 87, 38. Ei é&eore x.7:A.] as in xix. 2; Luke xiv. 8; Mark x. 2. 
“Modeste alloquitur,’? Bengel. —‘EAAyvioti yırworeıc] understandest thou 
Greek? A question of surprise at Paul’s having spoken in Greek. The 
expression does not require the usually assumed supplement of 2adciv,® but 
the adverb belongs directly to the verb y:véckecc.° — our dpa ov ei K.r.A.] 
Thou art not then, as I imagined, the Egyptian, ete. The emphasis lies on 
ovx, SO that the answer would again begin with ov.!! Incorrectly, Vulgate, 
Erasmus, Beza, and others: nonne tu es, etc. —The Egyptian, for whom 
the tribune had—probably from a mere natural conjecture of his own— 
taken Paul, was a phantastic pseudo-prophet, who in the reign of Nero 
wished to destroy the Roman government and led his followers, collected 
in the wilderness, to the Mount of Olives, from which they were to see 
the walls of the capital falldown, Defeated with his followers by the 
procurator Felix, he had taken to flight ; and therefore Lysias, in conse- 
quence of his remembrance of this event still fresh after the lapse of a 
considerable time," lighted on the idea that the dreaded enthusiast, now 
returned or drawn forth from his long concealment, had fallen into the 
hands of popular fury. — retpaxicya.] Josephus™ gives the followers of 
the Egyptian at rp:cuvpiove ; but this is only an apparent inconsistency with 
our passage, for here there is only brought forward a single, specially re- 
markable appearance of the rebel, perhaps the first step which he took with 
his most immediate and most dangerous followers, and therefore the read- 
ing in Josephus is not to be changed in accordance with our passage, in 
opposition to Kuinoel and Olshausen.!? — How greatly under the worthless 

1Comp. Winer, p. 281 (E. T. 375) : Kiihner, 


11 See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 186. Comp. 


ad Xen. Anab. 1. 3. 14. 

2Sce Sturz, Dial. Al. p. 30; Lobeck, ad 
Phryn. p. 377. 

3 So xxii. 24, xxiii. 10, 16, 32. 

4 Joseph. Bell. Jud. v. 5. 8. 

5 Ad Phryn. p. 324. 

6 See Stallb. ad Plat. Phaed. p. 67 C. 

7 Comp. Acts xxii. 22. 

8 p. 490 (E. T. 660). Comp. v. 16. 

9 Neh. xiii. 24. 

10 Comp. Xen. Anab. vii. 6. 8, Cyrop. vii. 5. 
31: rovs Svpiote Eemiotapevovs, comp. Graece 
nescire in Cic. p. Flacco, 4. 


Bäumlein, Partik. p 281. 

12 Joseph. Bell. ıi. 13. 5, Antt. xx. 8. 6. 

13 For dıfferent combinations with a view to 
the more exact determination of the time of 
this event, which, however, remains doubtful, 
see Wieseler, p. 76 ff.; Stölting, Beitr. z. 
Ewegese d. Paul. Br. p. 190 ff. 

14 Bell. l.c. 

is But there remains in contradiction both 
with our passage and with the tpropuptocs of 
Josephus himself, his statement, Antt. xx. 8. 
6, that 400 were slain and 200 taken prisoners ; 
for in Bell. 1i. 18. 5, he informs us that the 


412 CHAP. XXI., 39, 40. 


Felix the evil of banditti! prevailed in Jerusalem and Judaea generally, see 
in Joseph. Antt. xx. 6 f. 

Vv. 39, 40. Iam indeed (uév)—not the Egyptian, but—a Jew from Tarsus, 
and so apprehended by thee through being confounded with another, yet I 
pray thee, etc. —av3pwroc] In his speech to the people Paul used the more 
honourable word avjp.2 —oix aojuov| See examples of this litotes in the 
designation of important cities, in Wetstein ad loc.” A conscious feeling 
of patriotism is implied in the expression. — xaréo. r. x.] See on xii. 17. 
moaAne dé oıyYc yevou.| ‘*Conticuere omnes intentique ora tenebant.’’ *— 79 
'Eßp. dıar.) thus not likewise in Greek, as in ver. 37, but in the Syro- 
Chaldaic dialect of the country,’ in order, namely, to find a more favourable 
hearing with the people. — We may add, that the permission to speak granted 
by the tribune is too readily explainable from the unexpected disillusion 
wlfich he had just experienced, ver. 39, to admit of its being urged as a 
reason against the historical character of the speech,° just as the silence 
which set in is explainable enough as the effect of surprise in the case of 
the mobile vulgus. And if the following speech, as regards is contents, does 
not enter upon the position of the speaker towards the law, it was, in 
presence of the prejudice and passion of the multitude, a very wise pro- 
cedure simply to set forth facts, by which the whole working of the apostle 
is apologetically exhibited. 





Notes BY AMERICAN EDITOR. 


(pP?) Rhodes and Palara. V. 1. 


The island of Rhodes was famous for its natural beauty and great fertility. 
So genial was its climate, that it was proverbially said the sun shone every 
day in Rhodes. Its chief city, of the same name, which signifies rosy, was 
celebrated for its excellent schools and extensive commerce. Cicero and other 
young noble Romans made it their university. There stood the colossal brazen 
statue of Apollo, one hundred and twenty-seven feet in height, which was re- 
garded as one of the wonders of the world. It long remained a place of im- 
portance, and, in the middle ages, was famous as the residence of the Knights 
of St. John, by whom it was rescued from the Saracens in 1310, and held by 
them until it was conquered in 1523 by Solyman the Magnificent. It now be- 
longs to the Turks, who have long oppressed the people, and its prosperity 
has ceased. Its gardens still, however, are filled with delicious fruits, and there 
are the ruins of an old fortress and the cells of the knights to be seen. 


greater part were either cantured or slain. I Tov aıkapıov, the daggermen, see Suicer, 


But this contradiction is simply chargeable to Thes. II. p. 957: the article denotes the class 
Josephus himself, as the incompatibility of of men. 


his statements discloses a historical error, 2 Schaefer, ad Long. p 408. See xxü. 3. 
concerning which our passage shows de- 3 Comp. Jacobs, ad Achill. Tat. p. 718. 
cisively that it was committed either in the 4 Virgil. Aen. ii. 1, 

assertion that the greater part were captured 857.019: 

or slain, or in the statement of the numbers ® Baur, Zeller. 


in Antt. l.c. 


NOTES. 413 


At Patara, a seaport of Lycia, near the mouth of the river Xanthus, was a 
famous oracle of Apollo, which was held as scarcely inferior to that at Delphi, 
hence Horace describes the god as the ‘‘ Delius et Patarens Apollo.” Here 
the apostle landed, and embarked in another vessel. The place is now inruins, 
its harbor filled with sand-banks, its temple demolished, and its oracles dumb. 


“The oracles are dumb ; 
No voice nor hideous hum 
Runs through the archéd roof in words deceiving ; 
Apollo from his shrine 
Can no more divine, 
With hollow shriek the steep of Delphos leaving; 
No nightly trance or breathéd spell 
Inspires the pale-eyed priests from the prophetic cell.’’ 
(Milton.) 


(a?) Disciples at Tyre. V. 4. 


A small church had been gathered here, probably through the labors of some 
of the dispersion, possibly by the preaching of Philip. While waiting for the 
departure of the vessel, the apostle spent a week with these disciples, and we 
can well imagine what a precious season they enjoyed, and we wonder not that 
they all—men, women, and children—came to the shore with him, nor that, 
having intimation of the trials and sufferings which awaited the apostle at Je- 
rusalem, they sought to dissuade him from going. We must ever distinguish 
between the divine intimations and human inferences. These disciples at Tyre 
had received some foreshadowings of coming affliction to Paul, yet had not 
received so full a revelation of the divine mind, as was given to Paul, hence 
their counsel was opposed to his decision. The period of seven days ‘‘men- 
tioned at Troas, and again at Puteoli, seems to indicate that Paul arranged to 
be at Troas, Puteoli, and Tyre over the Sabbath, and to partake with them of 
the Lord’s Supper.’’ 


(n°) Philip’s four daughters. VY. 9. 


The remarks of Meyer on this verse are just. Gloag observes : ‘‘ This remark 
does not seem to be merely incidentally introduced ; but is probably an indi- 
cation that the daughters of Philip, influenced by the spirit of prophecy, fore- 
told the sufferings which awaited the apostle at Jerusalem.” Howson says: 
“ There seems to have been an organization at Ephesus of ‘ widows’ of an ad- 
vanced’ age, who spent their days in charitable work in connection with the 
church. But we find no trace of any order of virgins in the early church.” 
Hackett writes : ‘‘ Luke mentions the fact as remarkable, and not as inany way 
related to the history. It is hardly possible that they too foretold the apostle’s 
approaching captivity.’’ Alford says: ‘‘ To find an argument for the so-called 
‘honor of virginity’ in this verse only shows to what resources those will 
stoop who have failed to apprehend the whole spirit and rule of the gospel in 
the matter.” Alexander remarks : They “ were inspired, literally, prophesying, 
not as public teachers, but in private, perhaps actually prophesying in the 
strict sense, at the time of Paul’s arrival, i.e. predicting what was to befall him, 
like the Tyrian disciples.’’ ‘‘ Their virginity is probably referred to only as a 


414 CHAP. XXI.—NOTES: 


reason for their being still at home, and not as having any necessary connec- 
tion with their inspiration.”’ We concur fully in the remarks of Dr. Taylor : 
““ At this time his four unmarried daughters, who were possessed of the gift of 
prophecy, were living under his roof ; and though it is not said in so many 
words that they foretold what was to happen to the apostle, yet it seems likely 
that they also renewed the warnings which, he had already so frequently re- 
ceived,’’ and he justly adds in a note, there seems no foundation whatever for 
the notion of Plumptre that they were under a vow. Furrar says: ‘‘ The 
house of Philip was hallowed by the gentle ministries of four daughters, who, 
looking for the coming of Christ, had devoted to the service of the gospel their 
virgin lives.”’ 


(s?) Tarried many days. VY. 10. 


The phrase is literally more days, rendered by the words some, several, im- 
plying that he spent a longer time there than in other places on the way, or 
than he had intended to spend at least a number of days— probably two weeks. 
He left Philippi with the design of reaching Jerusalem before Pentecost. He 
was at Philippi during the Passover. And from the Passover to Pentecost 
there are fifty days. We may reckon the time thus: From Philippi to Troas 
5 days, at Troas 7. To Assos and Mitylene 1, to Chios, Samos, and Miletus 3 ; 
at Miletus and to Cos about 3; Rhodes and Patara 2; to Tyre 2; at Tyre7; 
Ptolemais 2 ; to Cesaraea 1. Making 33 days in all, leaving 17 to spend at Cesa- 
raea ; and to go to Jerusalem, which would not require more than 2 days. 


(T?) Paul purifying himself. V. 26. 


The views of Meyer on this act of the apostle are fully expressed, and com- 
mend themselves to general acceptance—that the apostle acted in full view of 
the absolute truth of the gospel, and in the exercise of Christian freedom and 
condescending charity. Alford says: ‘‘ James and the elders made this pro- 
posal, assuming that Paul could comply with it salva conscientiä ; perhaps also 
as a proof to assure themselves and others of his sentiments ; and Paul ac- 
cepted it salva conscientia. But this he could only have done on one con- 
dition, that he was sure by it not to contribute in these four Nazarites to the 
error of justification by works of the law.’ Paul, in compassion to the weak 
faith of his Jewish brethren, associated himself with four members of the 
church who had a vow, and this he did, without implying that it was neces- 
sary for any, and certainly not for the Gentile Christians, to do the same thing. 
Neander writes : ‘* Let us recollect that the faith in Jesus as the promised Mes- 
siah was the fundamental doctrine, on which the whole structure of the church 
arose. Accordingly the first Christian community was formed of very hetero- 
geneous materials. It was composed of such as differed from other Jews only 
by the acknowledging of Jesus as the Messiah ; of such as still continued bound 
to the same contracted Jewish notions, which they had entertained before ; 
and of such as by coming to know Jesus more and more as the Messiah in the 
higher spiritual sense, were becoming more completely freed from their beset- 
ting errors. As Christ himself had faithfully observed the Mosaic law, so the 
faithful observance of it was adhered to at first by all believers.’’ Farrar re- 


NOTES. 415 


marks : “Still there were two great principles which he had thoroughly 
grasped, and on which he had consistently acted. One was acquiescence in 
things indifferent for the sake of charity, so that he gladly became as a Jew to 
Jews that he might save Jews ; the other that, during the short time which 
remained, and under the stress of the present necessity, it was each man’s duty 
to abide in the condition wherein he had been called. His objection to Le- 
vitism was not an objection to external conformity, but only to that substitution 
of externalism for faith, to which conformity might lead. He did not so much 
object to ceremonies as to placing any reliance on them. He might have wished 
that things were otherwise, and that the course suggested to him involved a 
less painful sacrifice.’’ Gloag observes : “ According to Paul’s views the cere- 
monies of the law were matters of indifference ; he himself appears to have 
observed them, though with no great strictness ; hence he felt himself at 
liberty to accommodate himself to the conduct of others in these indifferent 
things. And it was this very liberality of spirit, this freedom of action, that 
enabled him to comply with the request of James and the elders. Christian 
love, which was the grand moving principle of his conduct, caused him to 
accommodate himself to the views of the Jews, when he could do so without 
any sacrifice of principle, in order to remove their prejudices.”’ 

Schaff says : ‘‘ And as to Paul, he was here not in his proper Gentile-Chris- 
tian field of labor. His conduct, on other occasions, proves that he was far 
from allowing himself from being restricted in this field. He reserved to him- 
self entire independence in his operations. But he stood now on the venera- 
ble ground of the Jewish-Christian mother church, where he had to respect the 
customs of the Fathers, and the authority of James, the regular bishop or pre- 
siding elder. Clearly conscious of already possessing righteousness and salva- 
tion in Christ, he accommodated himself, with the best and noblest intentions, 
to the weaker brethren.”’ 


416 CRITICAL REMARKS. 


CHAPTER XXL. 


Ver. 1. yuri] is decided by its attestation. Elz. has viv. — Ver. 2. mpooedwveı] 
Tisch. Born. read mpoogwvei, following D Emin. Theoph, Oec. Rightly ; the 
Recepta is a mistaken alteration in accordance with xxi. 40, from which 
mpoceguvycev is inserted in G, min. — Ver. 3. Ev] is wanting in important wit- 
nesses; deleted by Lachm. Born. But its non logical position occasioned the 
omission. — Ver. 9. xa) éudofor Ey&vorro] is wanting in A B H N, min. and sev- 
eral vss. Deleted by Lachm. But the omission is explained by the homoeo- 
teleuton. Had there been interpolation, Evveoi from ix, 7 would have been used. 
— Ver. 12. eöceßns] is wanting in A, Vulg. Condemned by Mill. On the other 
hand, BG HS, and many min. Chrys. Theophyl. have evAa37/s, which Lachm, 
and Tisch. read. The omission of the word is to be considered as a mere 
transeriber’s error ; and evAaf7s is to be preferred, on account of the prepon- 
derance of evidence. — Ver. 16. aitrod] Elz. has rod Kupiov. against decisive 
attestation. An interpretation, for which other witnesses have 'Ijcov. — Ver. 
20. Zredavov] is wanting only in A, 68, and would fall, were it not so decidedly 
attested, to be considered an addition. But with this attestation the omission 
is to be explained by an error in copying (ZregavOY rOY). — After ovvevdorov 
Elz. has rj avaipéoer adrov. which, however, is wanting in A BD E 8, 40, and 
some vss., and has come in from viii. 1 (in opposition to Reiche, nov. descript. 
Codd. N. T. p. 28). — Ver. 22. kadjkev] Elz. has xafjxov, supported by Rinck, 
in opposition to decisive testimony. — Ver. 23. aöpa] D, Syr. Cassiod. have 
oipavov. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Born. But the evidence is 
too weak, and oöp. bears the character of a more precise definition of aé¢pa. — 
Ver. 24. eiodyeodaı] Elz. has dyeofa, against greatly preponderating evidence. 
EIZ was absorbed by the preceding O2. eiras is to be read instead of eizor, 
according to decisive testimony, with Tisch. and Lachm. — Ver. 25. mpodérervar} 
has, among the many variations,—apo¢rewev (Elz.), mporreivavro, mpooersıyar, 
mpogErteivov, TpooFTevev,—the strongest attestation. The change of the plural 
into the singular is explained from the fact that the previous context contains 
nothing of a number of persons executing the sentence, and therefore 6 yAi- 
apxos was still regarded as the subject. — Ver. 26. Before ri Elz. has dpa, 
against A B C E &, min. Vulg. and other vss. So also Born., following D GH, 
min. vss. Chrys. Certainly “ vox innocentissima ” (Born.), but an addition hy 
way of gloss according to these preponderating witnesses. — Ver. 30. rapa] 
Lachm. and Born. read ör6, according to A B C E 8, min. Theophyl. Oec. The 
weight of evidence decides for $76. — After 2Avcev abr. Elz. has amd r. desudn: 
An explanatory addition, against greatly preponderating testimony. — Instead 
of ouveißeiv Elz. has é20eiv, against equally preponderant evidence. How easily 
might ZYN be suppressed in consequence of the preceding ZEN ! — ray ro 


ovvedpiov] Elz. has 6%0v 76 ovvedp. aitdv, against decisive evidence, although 
defended by Reiche, l.c. p. 28. 


PAUL’S SPEECH TO THE MOB. 41% 


Vv. 1-3. ’Aderdor x. mar&pec] quite a national address.! Even Sanhe- 
drists were not wanting in the hostile crowd ; at least the speaker presup- 
poses their presence. — axoboare «.r.A.] hear from me my present defence to 
you (w*). Astothe double genitive with axovew, comp. on John xii. 46. 
— After ver. 1, a pause. — £yo uév] Luke has not at the very outset settled 
the logical arrangement of the sentence, and therefore mistakes the correct 
position of the uév, which was appropriate only after yeyevv. Similar ex- 
amples of the deranged position of vév and dé often occur in the classics.” 
—avatedpaypévoc . . . vouov] Whether the comma is to be placed after 
raity* or after Tawarını,* is—seeing that the meaning and the progression 
of the speech are the same with either construction—to be decided simply 
by the external structure of the discourse, according to which a new ele- 
ment is always introduced by the prefixing of a nominative participle : 
yeyevvnuévoc, avatedpaupévoc, meradevutvos: born at Tarsus in Cilicia, but 
brought up in this city, Jerusalem, at the feet of Gamaliel,? instructed 
according to the strictness of the ancestral law. The latter after the general 
avaredpaun. k.7.2. brings into relief a special point, and therefore it is not 
to be affirmed that xapa r. 76d. Tau. suits only reraid.° — rapa rove nödac] a 
respectful expression, 77» moAAyv mpös Tov avdpa aida detkvic,’ to be explained 
from the Jewish custom of scholars sitting partly on the floor, partly on 
benches at the feet of their teacher, who sat more elevated on a chair.® 
The tradition that, until the death of Gamaliel, the scholars listened in a 
standing posture to their teachers,’ even if it were the case,!’ cannot be 
urged against this view, as even the standing scholar may be conceived as 
being at the feet of his teacher sitting on the elevated cathedra."\— xara arpiß. 
Tov TaTpw@ov vöuov] 2.e. in accordance with the strictness contained in, living and 
ruling in, the ancestral law. The genitive depends on axpiß. Erasmus, 
Castalio, and others connect it with rerard., held to be used substan- 
tively: carefully instructed in the ancestral law. Much too tame, as care- 
ful legal instruction is after avaredp. . . . mapa r. 76d. Tauar. understood 
of itself, and therefore the progress of the speech requires special climactic 
force. — The rarpooc vöuoc is the law received from the fathers, i.e. the 
Mosaic law, but not including the precepts of the Pharisees, as Kuinoel 
supposes—which is arbitrarily imported. It concerned Paul here only to 


bring into prominence the Mosaically orthodox strictness of his training ; 


1 Comp. on vii. 2. 

2See Bäumlein, Partik. p. 168; Winer, p. 
520 (E. T. 700.) 

3 Alberti, Wolf, Griesbach, Heinrichs, Kui- 


10 But see on Luke ii: 46. 

11 Matt. xxiii. 2; Vitringa, Z.c. p. 165 f. 

12 Hermann, ad Viger. p. 777. 

13 Tlatpwa ev Ta eK marepwv eis viovs xw- 


noel, Lachmann, Tischendorf, de Wette. 

4 Calvin, Beza, Castalio, and most of the 
older commentators, Bornemann, 

5 See on v. 34. 

6 De Wette, 

7 Chrysostom. 

8 Schoettg. in Joc. Bornemann, Schol. in 
Luce. p. 179. 

9 Vitringa, Synag. p. 166 f.; Wagenseil, ad 
Sota, p. 993. 


podvra, Ammonius, p. 111. Concerning the 

difference of rarpwos, marpıos, and marpikds, 

not always preserved, however, and often ı 
obscured by interchange in the codd., see 

Schoemann, ad Is. p. 218; Maetzn. ad Lycurg. . 
p. 127; Ellendt, Zea. Soph. II. ps 531 f. On» 
TaTP@OS vonos, Comp. 2 Macc. vi. 1; Joseph. . 
Antt. xii. 3.3; Xen. Hell. ii. 3. 2; Thue. viii. 

76.6% marpıor vopoı. Comp. xxiv. 14, xxviii. 

17. 


418 CHAP. XXII., 4-21. 


the other specifically Pharisaic element was suggested to the hearer by the 
mention of Gamaliel, but not by r. zatp. vöuov. Paul expresses himself 
otherwise in Phil. iii. 5 and Gal. i, 14. — ydwrig Unäpx. toi Oeov] so that I 
was a zealot for God, for the cause and glory of God, contains a special 
characteristic definition to weraderuevoe . . . véuov.! ‘* Uterque locus 
quiddam ex mimesi habet ; nam Judaei putabant se tantum tribuere Deo, 
quantum detraherent Jesu Christo,’’ Bengel. 

Vv. 4,5. Tair. r. ödöv] for Christianity was in his case the evident cause 
of the enmity.” — äypı @avarov] Grotius appropriately remarks: ‘‘ quantum 
scil. in me erat.’’ It indicates how far the intention in the. édiwga went, 
namely, even to the bringing about of their execution. — 6 apxıep.] The 
high priest at the time, still living.* — uaprvpei] not futurum Atticum, but: 
he is, as the course of the matter necessarily involves, my witness. — nai rav 
ro mpeoßvr.] and the whole body of the elders.* — rpic rovc adeAgorc] i.e. to the 
Jews.° Bornemann: against the Christians. Paul would in that case have 
entirely forgotten his pre-Christian standpoint, in the sense of which he 
speaks ; and the hostile reference of zpéc¢ must have been suggested by the 
context, which, however, with the simple &mıor. deZau. mpöc is not at all here 
the case. — kat roc éxeice, i.e. eic Aauaonöv, dvtac| also those who were thither. 
Paul conceives them as having come thither, since the persecution about 
Stephen, and so being found there ; hence éxeice does not stand for éxei, so 
still de Wette, but is to be explained from a pregnant construction com- 
mon especially with later writers. ° 

Vv. 6-11. See on ix. 3-8. Comp. xxvi. 13 ff.  [xavév] ö.e. of consider- 
able strength. It was a light of glory’ dazzling him; more precisely 
described in xxvi. 12. — Ver. 10. dv r£rarrai coe morzaaı] what is appointed 
to thee to do ; by whom, is left entirely undetermined. Jesus, who appeared 
to him, does not yet express Himself more precisely, but means: by God, 
ver. 14, — Ver. 11. öc dé on évéBrerov] but when I beheld not, when sight 
failed me ; he could not open his eyes, ver. 13.° 

Vv. 12-15. But Ananias, a religious man according to the law, attested ® by 
ail the Jews resident in Damascus, thus a mediator, neither hostile to the 
law nor unknown ! —dvdfiewov . . . avéBrewa eic abtév] avaBAérew, which 
may signify as well to lock up, as also visum recuperare,” has here !! the for- 
mer meaning, which is evident from eic aurov: look up! and at the same 
hour I looked up to him. We are to conceive the apostle as sitting there 
blind with closed eyelids, and Ananias standing before him. — zpozyerp. | 
has appointed thee thereto.!? — röv dixavov] Jesus, on whom, as the righteous,™ 


2 Comp. Rom. x. 2. 8 Comp. on the absolute eußAcreıv, Xen. 

2 Comp. on odds, ix. 2, xviii. 25, xix. 9, 23. Mem. iii. 11. 10 ; 2 Chron. xx. 24. 

3 See on ix. 2. ® Praised, comp. x. 22, vi. 3. 

* Comp. on Luke xxii. 66, and the yepovoia, 10See on John ix. 11, and Fritzsche, ad 
Vv. 21. Mare. p. 328. 

5 See ix. 2. 11 It is otherwise in ix. 17, 18. 

6 Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 44; comp. ii. 39, 12 See on iii. 20 ; comp. xxvi. 16. 
=xi. 3. 13 2 Cor. v. 21. 


7 Ver. 11. 


PAUL’S SPEECH. 419 


the divine will to save, rd éAyua avtov, was based.1— mpöc mavr. avdp.] 
Direction of the 2on wäpr., as in xiii. 31: to all men.’ 

Ver. 16. Ti ueAReıs;] Why tarriest thou? édAdewv so used only here in the 
N. T.; frequent in the classics. The question is not one of reproach, but 
of excitement and encouragement. — aröAovoaı ta¢ duapt. cov] let thyself be 
baptized, and thereby wash away thy sins. Here, too, baptism is that by 
means of which the forgiveness of the sins committed in the pre-Christian 
life takes place.* Calvin inserts saving clauses, in order not to allow the 
grace to be bound to the sacrament. As to the purposely-chosen middle 
forms, comp. on 1 Cor. x. 2. —ériad. 7d övona aitov] Wolf appropriately 
explains: ‘‘ postquam invocaveris atque ita professus fueris nomen Domini, 
as the Messiah. Id scilicet antecedere olim debebat initiationem per bap- 
tismum faciendam.”’ 

Vv. 17, 18. With this the history in ix. 26 is to be completed. — xa? rpo- 
cevxou£vov uov] a transition to the genitive absolute, independent of the case 
of the substantive.* — éxorace:] see on x. 10. The opposite: yiveodaı év 
&avra, Xl. 11. Regarding the non-identity of this ecstasy with 2 Cor. xiii. 
2 ff., see in loc. — ob rapadkE. o. T. wapt. mepı &uov] ep! évod is most naturally 
to be attached to r. uaprvp., aS waprupeiv mepi is quite usual, very often in 
John. Winer® connects it with zapad. Observe the order: thy witness 
of me. 

Vv. 19-21. “I interposed by way of objection ® the contrast, in which 
my working for Christianity, my waprvpia, would appear toward my former 
hostile working,’ which contrast could not but prove the truth and power 
of my conversion and promote the acceptance of my testimony, and °— 
Christ repeated His injunction to depart, which He further specially con- 
firmed by örı &yo eic &dvn waxpav E£aroor. oe.” ‘‘Commemorat hoc Judaeis 
Paulus, ut eis declararet summum amorem, quo apud eos cupivit manere 
lisque praedicare ; quod ergo iis relictis ad gentes iverit, non ex swo voto, 
sed Dei jussu compulsum fuisse,’’ Calovius. — airoi &rior.] is necessarily to 
be referred to the subject of rapad££ovra:, ver. 18, to the Jews in Jerusalem, 
not to the foreign Jews.” — iyo juny x.r.2.] Iwas there, etc. — xai auröc] et 
ipse, as well as other hostile persons. On ovvevdor., comp. vili. 1. — Ver. 


1 Comp. iii. 14, vii. 52. 

2 That is, according to the popular expres- 
sion: before all the world. Frequently so in 
Isocrates. See Bremi, ad Panegyr. 23, p. 28. 
But the universal destination of the apostle is 
implied therein. Comp. ver. 21. 

3 Comp. the Homeric aroAvnaiverdaı, I. i. 
113 f., and Niigelsbach in loc. Comp, ii. 38; 
Eph. v. 26; and see on 1 Cor. vi. 11. 

4See Bernhardy, p. 474; Kiihner, § 681; 
Stallb. ad Plat. Rep. p. 518 A. 

5 p. 130 (E. T. 172). 

* Ewald, p. 438, understands ver. 19 f. not 
as an objection, but as assenting : ‘‘ however 
humanly intelligible it might strictly be. that 
the Jews would not hear him.” But the ex- 
traordinary revelation in itself most naturally 


presupposes in Paul a human conception de- 
viating from the intimation contained in it, 
to which the heavenly call runs counter, as 
often also with the prophets (Moses, Jere- 
miah, etc.), the divine intimation encounters 
human scruples. If, moreover, the words 
here were meant as assenting, we should nec- 
essarily expect a hint of it in the expression 
(such as: vac, Kvpte). 

7 In which I was engaged in bringing be- 
lievers to prison (@vAaxcg., Wisd. xviii. 4), and 
in scourging them (Matt. x. 17), now in this 
synagogue, and now in that (kara Tas ovvay.). 
Comp. xxvi. 11. 

BäyTer 221. 

9 Heinrichs, 


420 CHAP. XXIL, 22-29. 


21. 2y6] with strong emphasis. Paul has to confide in and obey this I. — 
&Sarosrerö] This promised future sending forth ensued at xiii. 2, and how 
effectively ! see Rom. xv. 19. —eic¢ évy] among Gentiles. 

Vv. 22. "Axpı robrov rov Aöyov] namely, ver. 21, eime mp6g ue" mopevov, Ore eig 
0vn warp. Earoor. oe. This expression inflamed the jealousy of the children 
of Abraham in their pride and contempt of the Gentiles, all the more that 
it appeared only to confirm the accusation in xxi. 23. It cannot therefore 
surprise us that the continuation of the speech was here rendered impos- 
sible, just as the speech of Stephen and that of Paul at the Areopagus was 
broken off on analogous occasions of offence, which Baur makes use of 
against its historical character. — ov yap xabjxev «.r.A.] for it was not fit that 
he should remain in life; he ought not to have been protected in his life, 
when we designed to put him to death.! 

Ver. 23. They cast off their clothes, and hurled dust in the air, as a symbol 
of throwing stones,—both as the signal of a rage ready and eager person- 
ally to execute the aipe axd ri¢ yao Tov rowvrov! The objection of de Wette, 
that in fact Paul was in the power of the tribune, counts for nothing, as 
the gesture of the people was only a demonstration of their own vebement 
desire. Chrysostom took it, unsuitably as regards the sense and the words, 
of shaking out their garments—ra iuarıa Exrıwaooovreg Koviopröv EBaAov' Gore 
Nakerwrépav yevEohaı mv Gtdow ToVTo moivor, 7 Kai voßmoaı BovAduevor TOV 
üpxovra. Wetstein, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Hackett, and others explain it of 
waving their garments, by which means those at a distance signified their 
assent to the murderous exclamations of those standing near; and the 
throwing of the dust at all was only signum tumultus. But the text con- 
tains nothing of a distinction between those standing near and those at a 
distance, and hence this view arbitrarily mutilates and weakens the unity 
and life of the scene. The jirr. 7. inar. is not to be explained from the 
waving of garments in Lucian ;? but—in connection with the ery of exter- 
mination that had just gone before—from the laying aside of their garments 
with a view to the stoning,* to which, as was well known, the Jews were 
much inclined.‘ 

Ver. 24. It is unnecessarily assumed by Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and de Wette 
that the tribune did not understand the Hebrew address. But the tumult, 
only renewed and increased by it, appeared to him to presuppose some 
secret crime. He therefore orders the prisoner to be brought into the bar- 
racks, with the command ¢irac,* to examine him by the application of 
scourging,° in order to know on account of what offence’ they so shouted to 
him—to Paul.* — airo] for the crying and shouting were a hostile reply to 


him, 22, 23.° Bengel well remarks: ‘‘ acclamare dicuntur auditores verba 
1 xxi. 31. Comp. Winer, p. 265 (E. T.) 352. 1.5.8. [275). 


2 Dz saltat. 83 (but see the emendation of 
the passage in Bast, ad Aristaenet. epp. p. 580, 
ed. Boisson.); Ovid, Amor. ili. 2. 74 (when it 
is a token of approbation, see Wetstein). 

3 Ver. 20, vil. 58. 

4 vy. 26, xiv. 19; John x. 31. On pimrew ta 
imar., comp. Plat. Rep. p. 473 IE; Xen. Anad. 


5 See Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 236 f. (E. T. 

6 averageodaı, Susannah 14, Judg. vi. 29, not 
preserved in Greek writers, who have ééera- 
Geotar, 

7 Xiil. 28, xxiii. 28, xxv. 18, xxviii. 18, 

° Comp. xxiii. 18. 

* On exup. rırı, comp. Plut. Pomp. 4. 


x 


PLEA OF ROMAN CITIZENSHIP. 421 


facienti.’’ 1— Moreover, it was contrary to the Roman criminal law for the 
tribune to begin the investigation with a view to bring out a confession by 
way of torture,” not to mention that here it was not a slave who was to be 
questioned.* As in the case of Jesus,‘ it was perhaps here also the content- 
ment of the people that was intended. Comp. Chrysostom : arAöc ri &£ovaig 
xpäraı (the tribune), «ai éxeivorg mpd¢ ydpiv moet . . . bmwc Taboete Tov Exelvwv 
Yvuov Adırov Ovta. 

Vv. 25-27. ‘Qe de mpo£teiwvav avröv roig inao.| But when they had stretched 
him before the thongs. Those who were to be scourged were bound and 
stretched on a stake. Thus they formed the object stretched out before the 
thongs, the scourge consisting of thongs.° Comp. Beza: ‘‘quum autem 
eum distendissent loris, caedendum.” ° The subject of rpo£r. is those charged 
with the execution of the punishment, the Roman soldiers. Following 
Henry Stephanus, most expositors, among them Grotius, Homberg, Loesner, 
Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Olshausen, take rporeivew as equivalent to mpofdArew 
(Zonaras : mporeivovorv' avti tov Toorıdkacı Kal mpoßaAAovraı) : cum loris eum 
obtulissent s. tradidissent. But rporeiveıv never means simply tradere, but 
always to stretch before, to hold before, sometimes in the literal, sometimes in 
a figurative’ sense. But here the context, treating of a scourging, quite 
demands the entirely literal rendering. Others take roic iuäcıw instrumen- 
tally,* of the thongs with which the delinquent was either merely bound,?® 
or, along with that, was placed in a suspended position.'' But in both 
cases not only would roi¢ iuacıv be a very unnecessary statement, but also 
the zpo in xpoér. would be without reference ; and scourging in a sus- 
pended position was not a usual, but an extraordinary and aggravated, mode 
of treatment, which would therefore necessarily have been here definitely 
noted. — ei avOp. “Pwu. k. axatdkp. K.r.4.] See on xvi. 37. The problematic 
form of interrogation: whether, etc.,! has here a dash of irony, from the 
sense of right so roughly wounded. The kai is: in addition thereto. Abo 
7a éyKAtjuata’ Kat TO dvev Adyou Kai TO ‘Pwuaiov övra, Chrysostom. On the non- 
use of the right of citizenship at Philippi, see on xvi. 23. — Ver. 27. Thou 
arta Roman? A question of surprise, with the emphatic contemptuous 
at (V°). 

Vv. 28, 29. ‘Eye rodAod redaA. «.7.2.] The tribune, to whom it was known 
that a native of Tarsus had not, as such, the right of citizenship, thinks 
that Paul must probably have come to it by purchase, and yet for this the 
arrested Cilician appears to him too poor. With the sale of citizenship, it 
was sought at that time ?—by an often ridiculed abuse—to fill the imperial 


1Com. xii. 22; Luke xxiil. 21; 3 Macc. 

2L. 1, D. 48. 18. [vii. 13. 

31.8. ibid. 

4 John xix. 1. 

5 Comp. bubuli cottabi, Plaut. Trin. iv. 3. 4. 

® On inas of the leathern whip, comp. al- 
ready Hom. 7/7. xxiii. 363; Anthol. vi. 194; 
Artemidor. ii. 53. 

7 For example, of the holding forth or offer- 
ing of conditions, of a gain, of money, of the 


hand, of friendship, of a hope, of an enjoy- 
ment, and the like, also of pretexts. See 
Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. 181 f.; Valck- 
enaer, ad Callim. fragm. p. 224. [loris.”? 

® Comp. Vulg.: “ cum adstrinwissent eum 

9 Erasmus, Castalio, Calvin, de Dieu, Ham- 
mond, Bengel, Michaelis, also Luther. 

10 Scaliger, Zp. ii. 146, p. 362. 

11 Comp. oni, 6. 

12 Dio Cass. Ix. 17. 


422 CHAP. XXIL, 30. 

chest.!— 2y& 68 Kat yeytvvmuaı] But I am even so (kai) born, namely, as 
‘Pouaioc, so that my moArreia, as hereditary, is even yevvaidrepa! a bold 
answer, which did not fail to make its impression. — kalt 6 yA. dé &doß.] 
and the tribune also was afraid. On kai... 6é, atque etiam, see on John 
vi. 51. ‘‘Facinus est, vinciri civem Romanum ; scelus, verberari ; prope 
parricidium necari.””” And the binding had taken place with arbitrary 
violence before any examination.’ It is otherwise xxiv. 27, xxvi. 29. See 
on these two passages. Therefore dedexoc, which evidently points to xxi. 
33, is not to be referred, with Béttger* to the binding with a view to scourg- 
ing, on account of ver. 30; nor, with de Wette, is the statement of the 
fear of the tribune to be traced back to an error of the reporter, or at all 
to be removed by conjectural emendation.® And that Paul was still bound 
after the hearing,° was precisely after the hearing and after the occurrences 
in it in due order.’ — xai 671] dependent on £60ß. : and because he was in the 
position of having bound him. 

Ver. 30. Tö ri xaryy. rapa r. ’Iovd.] is an epexegetical definition of rd 
acoakéc. The article; as in iv. 21. The ri is nominative.* — éAvoev aurov] 
Lysias did not immediately, when he learned the citizenship of Paul, order 
him to be loosed, but only on the following day, when he placed him 
before the chief priests and in general the whole Sanhedrim.* This was 
quite the proceeding of a haughty consistency, according to which the Roman, 
notwithstanding the 2603797, could not prevail upon himself to expose his 
mistake by an immediate release of the Jew. Enough, that he ordered 
them to refrain from the scourging not yet begun; the binding had at 
once taken place, and so he left him bound until the next day, when the 
publicity of the further proceedings no longer permitted it. Kuinoel’s 
view, that éAvosy refers to the releasing from the ewstodia militaris, in which 
the tribune had commanded the apostle to be placed, bound with a chain 
to a soldier, after the assurance that he was a Roman citizen, is an arbitrary 
idea forced on the text, as /Avcev necessarily points back to dedexdc, ver. 29, 
and this to xxi. 33. —xarayayév] from the castle of Antonia down to the 
council-room of the Sanhedrim.'’? Comp. xxiii. 10. 


Notes BY AMERICAN EDITOR. 
(u?) Paul’s defence. Y. 1. 
In this speech to the multitude, the apostle gives a skilfully arranged ac- 


count of his past experience and conduct with the view of allaying the fanati- 


1Comp. Wetstein and Jacobs, ad Del. 
Epigr. p. 1%7.—See examples of kebakaıor, 


5 Rinck : dedapkws. 
6 xxiii. 18. 


capital, sum of money,—as to the use of which 
in ancient Greek (Plat. Legg. v. p. 742 C) Beza 
was mistaken—in Kypke II. p. 116. 

2 Cie. Verr. v.66. Comp. on xvi. 37. 

3 During imprisonment preparatory to trial 
binding was legally admissible, so far as it 
was connected with the custodia militaris. 

4 Beitr. IL. p. 6. 


7 See Böttger, l.c. ; Wieseler, p. 377. 

8 Comp. Thue. i. 9. 2: adıria moAAN kary- 
yopeıro avrod wd Tov "EAAjvwv, Soph. O. R. 
529. 

9 ToVS Apxıepeis Kal mav To ovveöp., COMP. 
Mats. xxvi. 59 ; Mark xiv. 55. 

10 See also Wieseler, Beitr. 2. Würdig. d. 
Ev. p. 211. 


NOTES. 423 


cal excitement of many of the Jews, and of replying to their unfounded accu- 
sations against him. Heavows himself to be a Jew, both by birth and train- 
ing ; refers to his former fierce persecutions of the Christians ; gives an ac- 
count of his wonderful and memorable conversion ; explains how he was bap- 
tized and admitted into the fellowship of the disciples by a pious Jew, and re- 
fers to his labors among the Gentiles. Throughout the address, he depreciates 
himself, exalts Christ, and makes conversion to him an epoch in a man’s life. 
It is interesting to note how the addresses delivered by Paul on this occasion, 
and when brought before Agrippa, differ from each other, and from the narra- 
tive given by Luke, and yet how they harmonize in all material points. The 
discrepancies in the several statements present no serious difficulties to any, 
except those who seek to find and multiply contradictions in Scripture. A 
eareful consideration of the object which the apostle had in view in each of 
his addresses will furnish a natural explanation of the various changes in the 
narrative of the events. In the ninth chapter we have a historical outline of 
the main facts of the case, and in his speeches, the apostle, drawing upon his 
own distinct recollection of the facts, gives prominence to such aspects of the 
event as were best adapted to the emergency of the occasion. Howson remarks : 
‘‘ Tf indeed there were, in these instances’’—the accounts of the conversion 
of Cornelius and of Paul—“‘ mere reiteration in the speeches of Peter and Paul 
of narratives previously given, we should have no ground for casting any im- 
putation on the authority of the Acts of the Apostles. But, in fact, there is 
much more than reiteration. The same story is told more than once, but so 
retold as to have in the retelling a distinct relation to the speaker and the audi- 
ence.” It is observable that in speaking to the Jews from the stairs of the 
castle, Paul not only uses the Hebrew dialect, but gives a Jewish coloring to 
the entire narrative ; while, when addressing Agrippa and his associates in the 
royal hall, in keeping with the place and the parties, he gives the story a strong 
Gentile coloring, speaking of the hostility of the Jews, and of the persecuted 
Christians as saints. 


(v3) Art thou a Roman? Y. 27. 


When the apostle in his address referred to his being sent to the Gentiles, 
the national pride of the Jews was wounded, and their intense bigotry aroused. 
With a wild and cruel fanaticism, they shouted, ‘‘ Away with him, away with 
such a fellow from the earth ; for it is not fit that he should live.” “ Thus be- 
gan one of the most odious and despicable spectacles which the world can wit- 
ness, the spectacle of an Oriental mob, hideous with impotent rage, howling, 
yelling, cursing, gnashing their teeth, flinging about their arms, waving and 
tossing their blue and red robes, casting dust into the air by handfuls, with all 
the furious gesticulations of an uncontrolled fanaticism.’’ Paul was rescued 
from the maddened mob by Lysias, the chief captain, who, however, ordered 
him to be examined under the scourge. When bound and ready for the tor- 
ture, Paul quietly asked whether it were lawful to scourge a Roman citizen. 
The centurion, to whom this question was addressed, hastened to inform and 
warn the commandant, who came immediately to Paul, and said to him, ‘‘ Art 
thou a Roman ?”’ as if the fact were almost incredible, and added, “ 'The privi- 
lege of citizenship cost me much.” To this Paul, with great dignity replied, “I 


424 CHAP, XXII.—NOTES. 


have been a citizen from my birth.” By the Lex Porcia, Roman citizens were ex- 
empted from all degrading punishment, such as that of scourging. The words, 
civis Romanus sum, acted like a magical charm in disarming the violence of 
provincial magistrates. It was the heaviest of all the charges brought by 
Cicero against Verres, that he had violated the rights of citizenship. ‘* Facinus 
est vincere civem Romanum, scelus verberare, proper parricidium necare ; 
quid dicam in crucem tollere?’’—It is a crime to bind a Roman citizen ; a 
heinous iniquity to scourge him ; next to parricide to kill him ; what shall I 
say to crucify him ?—and further, “Whoever he might be whom you were hurry- 
ing to the cross, were he even unknown to you, if he but said he was a Roman 
citizen, he would necessarily obtain from you, the pretor, by the simplest 
mention of Rome, if not an escape, yet at least a delay of his punishment.’’ 
According to the Roman law, it was death for any one falsely to assert a claim 
to the immunities of citizenship, one of which was exemption from the lash. 
“ Lex porcia virgas ab omnium civium Romanorum corpore amovit’’—The. Por- 
cian law removes the rod from the bodies of all Roman citizens. The claim of 
Paul was acknowledged. It is probable that in return for some important ser- 
vice rendered, or sum of money paid, Paul’s father or grandfather had ob- 
tained this distinction, hence Paul received it by inheritance. 


CRITICAL REMARKS. 425 


CHAPTER XXIII. 


VER. 6. vids dapıcalov] approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born., 
according to ABC &, min. Syr. Vulg. Tert. But Elz. and Scholz have vids 
apicaiov, The sing. was inserted, because people thought only of the relation 
of the son to the father. — Ver. 7. AaAnoavros] Lachm. reads eirövros, only ac- 
cording to A E 8, min. — rov Zadd.]| The article is to be deleted with Lachm. 
Tisch, Born. on preponderating evidence. — Ver. 9. of ypauuareis Tow u£povs TOV 
éapic.] A E, min. Copt. Vulg. have rıves tov bapic.; so Lachm. But BC N, 
min. vss. and Fathers have rivis tov ypauuarewv Tod uep,. T. Papio. ; so Born. 
Lastly, GH, min. Aeth. Oec. have jpaupareis tos pép. T. Papıo. ; so Tisch. At 
all events, rıves is thus so strongly attested that it must be regarded as genuine. 
It was very easily passed over after avaoravres. But with trvés the genitive rov 
ypaupat x.7.A. originally went together, so that the omission of r.vés drew after 
it the conversion of ray ypauuar. into ypauuareis (Tisch. ) and oj ypauuareis (Elz.). 
The reading of Lachm. is an abbreviation, either accidental (from homoeoteleu- 
ton) or intentional (from the deletion of the intervening words superfluous in 
themselves), We have accordingly, with Born., to read: rıves THv ypaunarewv 
Tov wep. TOv Papıo.— After ayyeAos Elz. has, against greatly preponderating 
testimony, u deouayouev, which was already rejected by Erasm. and Mill as an 
addition from v. 39, and following Griesb., by all the more recent editors 
(except Reiche, !.c. p. 28). — Ver. 10. evAa3n6eis] Preponderant witnesses have 
indeed go0f87feis, which Griesb. has recommended and Lachm. adopted ; but 
how easily was the quite familiar word very early substituted for evAaß., which 
does not elsewhere occur in that sense in the N. T.!— Ver. 11. After dapoeı 
Elz. has IlavAe, in opposition to A B C* E N, min. vss. Theophyl. Oec. Cassiod, 
Ambrosiast. An addition for the sake of completeness. Ver. 12. ovotpopyr oi 
’Iovdaioı) Elz. Rinck read tivis rov ’Iovdaiwv cvotp., in opposition to ABC E 8, 
min, Copt. Syr. p. Aeth. Arm Chrys. Occasioned by ver. 13.— Ver. 13. 
momoausvo. is to be read instead of menomköres, With Lachm. Tisch. Born., on 
decisive testimony. — Ver. 15. After örwos Elz. has aöpıov. An addition from 
ver. 20, against decisive evidence. — zpos inas] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read es 
vuas, following ABE 8, lo" Sahid. Rightly ; zpos is the more usual. — Ver. 
16. av evedpav] B G H, min. Chrys. Theophyl. Oec. have 76 évedpov, which 
Griesb. and Rinck have recommended, and Tisch. and Born. (not Lachm.) have 
adopted. But the preponderance of the Codd. is in favour of 17 évédpuv. The 
neuter was known to the transcribers from the LXX., therefore the two forms 
might easily be interchanged. — Ver. 20. ueAAavres] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read 
ueAAwv, after A BE, min. Copt. Aeth. The very weakly attested Recepta is 
from ver. 15. N* has wéAAov, N** ueAAövrwv. — Ver. 25. mepıexovoav] Lachm, 
Born. read &yovoav, according to BE N, min. Neglect of the (not essential) 
compound. — Ver. 27. abröv] is wanting in A BE SS, min. Chrys. Oec. Deleted 
by Lachm. and Born. But how easily was the quite unessential word passed 
over !— Ver. 30. ueAAeıv écectar] Lachm. Born. have only Eoeoda:, according to 


426 CHAP. XXIII., 14. 


ABEN, min. But the future infinitive made w£AAeıv appear as superfluous ; 
there existed no reason for its being added. — After éceofa. Elz. Scholz have 
brd Tov ’Iovdaiwv, which is deleted according to preponderant evidence as a 
supplementary addition. Instead of it, Lachm. and Born. have é§ avrov (with 
the omission of ééav775), following A E S, min. vss. But E£ avrov is also to be 
regarded us a marginal supplement (as the originators of the éx3ovA7 are not 
mentioned), which therefore displaced the original égavr7s. — The conclusion 
of the letter ééJwoo is wanting in A B 13, Copt. Aeth. Sahid. Vulg. ms. Deleted 
by Lachm. Tisch. Born. ; and rightly, as it is evidently an addition from xv. 
29, from which passage H, min. have even éJ/wofs.— Ver. 34, After avayv. de 
Elz. has 6 jyeucv, against decisive testimony. — Ver. 35. éxéAevoé re] Lachm, 
Tisch. Born, read «ceAevoas, after A BE N**(N* has «eAedvoavtos) min. Syr. p. 
The Recepta is a stylistic emendation. 


Vv. 1, 2. Paul, with the free and firm look, arevicag ro ovvedp., in which 
his good conscience is reflected, commences an address in his own defence 
to the Sanhedrim, and that in such a way as—without any special testimony 
of respect! for the sacred court, and with perfect freedom of apostolic self- 
reliance, which is recognisable in the simple avdpec adeAooi—to appeal first 
of all to the pure self-consciousness of his working as consecrated to God. 
The proud and brutal? high priest sees in this nothing but insolent pre- 
sumption, and makes him be stopped by a blow on the mouth from the 
continuance of such discourse. — racy ovveıd. ay.] with every good conscience, 
so that in every case I had a good conscience, 7.e agreeing with the divine 
will.® — In the éyé at the commencement is implied a moral self-conscious- 
ness of rectitude. — teroAirevua: TH Oew] I have administered—and still ad- 
minister, perfect—mine office for God, in the service of God ;* dative of desti- 
nation. He thus designates his apostolic office in its relation to the divine 
polity of the church.* —6 dé apyteped¢ ’Avaviac] Ver. 4 proves that this was 
the high priest actually discharging the duties of the office at the time. He 
was the son of Nebedaeus,’ the successor of Joseph the son of Camydus,’ 
and the predecessor of Ishmael the son of Phabi.? He had been sent to 
Rome by Quadratus, the predecessor of Felix, to answer for himself before 
the Emperor Claudius ; he must not, however, have thereby lost his office, 
but must have continued in it after his return.!! As ver. 4 permits for 6 
äpxıep. only the strict signification of the high priest performing the duties, 
and not that of one of the plurality of apxuepeic,? and as the deposition of 
Ananias is a mere supposition, the opinion defended since the time of 
Lightfoot,'* by several more recent expositors, particularly Michaelis, 
Eichhorn, Kuinoel, Hildebrand, Hemsen, is to be rejected,—-namely, that 
Ananias, deposed from the time of his suit at Rome, had at this time only 





1 Comp. iv. 8, vii. 2. 8 Antt. xx. 1. 3, 5. 2. 

2 Joseph. Antt. xx. Sf. [xx. 19. 9 Antt. xx. 8. 8, 11. 

SA 13m. io, oe met. 11. 16. Comp, on 10 Antt. xx. 6. 2, Bell. ii. 12. 6. 

4 Rom. i. 9. 11 See Anger, de temp. rat. p. 92 ff. 

5 See on Phil. 1. 27. 12 Tn opposition to van Hengel in the Godgel. 
® See Krebs, Obss. Flav. p. 244 ff. Bijdrag. 1862, p. 1001 ff., and Trip, p. 251 ff. 


7 Joseph. Antt. xx. 5. 2. 13 p, 119 (comp. ad. Joh. p. 1077). 


PAUL BEFORE JEWISH COUNCIL. 427 


temporarily administered (usurped) the office during an interregnum which 
took place between his successor Jonathan and the latter’s successor 
Ishmael. Against this view it is specially to be borne in mind, that the 
successor of Ananias was Jshmael, and not Jonathan, who had been at an 
' earlier period high priest ;! for in the alleged probative passages,? where 
the murder of the äpyıepeuc Jonathan is recorded, this apyep. is to be taken 
in the well-known wider titular sense. Lastly, Basnage * quite arbitrarily 
holds that at this time Ishmael was already high priest, but was absent 
from the hastily (?) assembled Sanhedrim, and therefore was represented 
by the highly respected* Ananias. —roic rapeor. auto] to those who, as 
officers in attendance on the court, stood beside him, Luke xix. 24. —rorr. 
avrov ro or.| to smite him on the mouth.° 

Ver. 3. The words contain truth freely expressed in righteous apostolic 
indignation, and require no excuse, but carry in themselves (kai ov Kay K.T.A.) 
their own justification. Yet here, in comparison with the calm meekness 
and self-renunciation of Jesus,® the ebullition of a vehement temperament 
is not to be mistaken. —rimtew cé u£AAeı 6 Beöc 18 not to be understood as 
an imprecation,’ but—for which the categorical wéAde is decisive—as a 
prophetic announcement of future certain retribution ; although it would be 
arbitrary withal to assume that Paul must have been precisely aware of 
the destruction of Ananias as it afterwards in point of fact occurred—he 
was murdered in the Jewish war by sicarii.* — roiye xexov.]| figurative desig- 
nation of the Aypoerite, inasmuch as he, with his concealed wickedness, 
resembles a wall beautifully whitened without, but composed of rotten 
materials within.’ — «ai oi] thou too, even thou, who yet as high priest 
shouldest have administered thine office quite otherwise than at such 
variance with its nature. — «oivov| comprises the official capacity, in which 
the high priest sits there ; hence it is not, with Kuinoel, to be taken in a 
future sense, nor, with Henry Stephanus, Pricaeus, and Valckenaer, to be 
accented xoıvov. The classical rapavoueiv, to act contrary to the law, is not 
elsewhere found in the N. T. 

Vv. 4, 5. Ilapeororsc] as in ver. 2. —rov apyep. T. Ocov] the holy man, 
who is God’s organ and minister. — ouk Ndeıv «.r.A.] I knew not that he is 
high priest. It is absolutely incredible that Paul was really ignorant of 
this, as Chrysostom,!° Oecumenius, Lyra, Beza, Clarius, Cornelius a Lapide, 
Calovius, Deyling, Wolf, Michaelis, Sepp, and others '' assume under vari- 


1 Joseph. Antt. xviii. 4. 3, 5. 3. 

2 Anti. xx. 8. 5, Bell. ii. 13. 3. 

3 Ad an. 56, § 24. 

4 Antt. xx. 9. 2. 

5 Comp. as to the avrov placed first, on John 
Ixe ld, 1 32, OL. 


tion. Luke would have mentioned it, be- 
cause otherwise the reader could not but 
understand the execution as having ensued. 

8 Joseph. Bell. ii. 17. 9. 

9 See Senec. de provid. 6; Ep. 115; Suicer, 
Thes. II. p. 144. Comp. Matt. xxiii. 27. 


6 John xviii. 22; comp. Matt. v. 39. 

? Camerarius, Bolten, Kuinoel. Observe 
the prefixing of the rurreıw, which returns 
the blow just received in a higher sense 
on the high priest. That the command of 
the high priest was not executed (Baum- 
garten, Trip), is an entirely arbitrary assump- 


10 Rejecting the ironical view, Chrysostom 
SaysS: Kat odddpa meidouar, un etdevar avTov, 
OTL apxvEpevs eoTL Sia pakpod méev ErraveAdovra 
Xpovov, un ovyyırouevov de cuvexas ‘Tovdators, 
Op@vra Sé kal Exelvov EV TH METW META TOAAGV 
(Trip. 
11 Comp. also Ewald, Holtzmann, p. 684 


Kat ETEPWV. 


428 CHAP, XXIII, 5-7. 

ous modifications. For, although after so long an absence from Jerusalem 
he might not have known the person of the high priest—whose oflice at 
that time frequently changed its occupants—by sight, yet he was much too 
familiar with the arrangements of the Sanhedrim not to have known the 
high priest by his very activity in directing it, by his seat, by his official 
dress, etc. The contrary would be only credible in the event of Ananias 
not having been the real high priest, or of a vacancy in the office having 
at that time taken place,! or of such a vacancy having been erroneously 
assumed by the apostle,” or of the sitting having been an irregular one,— 
not at least superintended by the high priest, and perhaps not held in the 
usual council-chamber,—which, however, after xxii. 30, is the less to be 
assumed, seeing that the assembly, expressly commanded by the tribune, 
and at which he himself was present,* was certainly opened in proper 
form, and was only afterwards thrown into confusion by the further saga- 
cious conduct of the apostle, ver. 6 ff. Entirely in keeping, on the other 
hand, with the irritated frame of Paul, is the zronical mode of taking it,* 
according to which he bitterly enough—and adeAgoi makes the irony only 
the more sharp—veils in these words the thought: ‘‘a man, who shows 
himself so unholy and vulgar, I could not at all regard'as the high priest.’’ 
Comp. Erasmus.° What an appropriate and cutting defence against the 
reproach, ver. 4! It implies that he was obliged to regard an apyepetc, 
who had acted so unworthily, as an ovx apxıepevc.° Others, against lin- 
guistic usage,” have endeavoured to alter the meaning of ook jdevv, either: 
non agnosco, SO, with various suggestions, Cyprian, Augustine, Beda, Pisca- 
tor, Lightfoot, Keuchen, and others, or non reputabam, so Simon Epis- 
copius, Limborch, Wetstein, Bengel, Morus, Stolz, Kuinoel, Olshausen, 
and others, also Neander, so that Paul would thus confess that his conduct 
was rash. This confession would be a foolish one, inconsistent with the 
strong and clear mind of the apostle in a critical situation, and simply 
compromising him. Baumgarten has the correct view, but will not admit 
the irony. But this must be admitted, as Paul does not say ov« éyvwv, or 
the like ; and there exists a holy irony. Lange® imports ideas into the 
passage, and twists it thus: ‘‘ Just because it is written, Thou shalt not 
curse the ruler of thy people, and YE have cursed the high priest of our 
people, Christ, for that reason I knew not that this is a high priest.’ 
Zeller understands the words, left by de Wette without definite explana- 
tion, as an actual wntruth, which, however, is only put into the mouth of 
the apostle by the narrator. But such a fiction, which, according to the 


1 But see on ver. 2. vin, Camerarius, Lorinus in Calovius, Marnix- 


2This hypothesis cannot be accepted, as 
Paul had already been for so many days in 
Jerusalem; therefore the interpretation of 
Beelen : “ je ne savais pas, qu’il y eüt un sou- 
verain Poniife,’ is a very unfortunate ex- 
pedient. apxvep. did not require the article any 
more than in John xviii. 13, xi. 49, 51. 

3 Ver. 10. 

4 wes already in Chrysostom, further, Cal- 


ius, in Wolf, Thiess, Heinrichs ; comp. also 
Grotius. 

5 Baur also, I. 237, ed. 2, recognises the ad- 
missibility of no other view than the ironical ; 
but even thus he sees in it an element of the 
unworthiness of the (fictitious) story. 

6 2 Macc. iv. 13. 

7 Comp. on vii. 18. 

8 Apost. Zeitalt. II. p. 314. 


PAUL’S SPEECH. 429 


naked meaning of the words, would have put a lie into the mouth of the 
holy apostle, is least of all to be imputed to a maker of history. The eacep- 
tionableness of the expression helps to warrant the certainty of its original- 
ity. — yeyparraı yap] gives the reason of our ov« Adeıv. In consequence, 
namely, of the scriptural prohibition quoted, Paul would not have spoken 
karoc against the high priest, had not the case of the ovi« Ydeıv occurred, by 
the conduct of the man. The passuge itself is Ex. xxii. 28, closely after 
the LXX.: a ruler of thy people thou shalt! not revile = xaxohoyeiv, xix. 9. 
The opposite: ed eireiv, to praise, ed Aéyew.? The senarian metre in our 
passage is accidental’ (w°). 

Vv. 6, 7. Whether the irony of ver. 5 was understood by the Sanhedrists 
or not, Paul at all events now knew that here a plain and straightforward 
defence, such as he had begun,* was quite out of place. With great pres- 
ence of mind and prudence he forthwith resorts to a means—all the more 
effectual in the excited state of their minds—of bringing the two parties, 
well known to him in the council, into collision with one another, and thereby 
for the time disposing the more numerous party, that of the Pharisees, in 
Savour of his person and cause. He did not certainly, from his knowledge 
of Pharisaism and from his previous experiences, conceive to himself the 
possibility of an actual “internal crisis’? among the Pharisees ;° but by 
the enlisting of their sectarian interests, and preventing their co-operation 
with the Sadducees, much was gained in the present position of affairs, 
especially in presence of the tribune, for Paul and his work. — év ro ovvedp. | 
so that he thus did not direct this exclamation (éxpazev) to any definite in- 
dividuals. —éya ®apıo..eiuı, vidg Papıo.] i.e. I for my part am a Pharisee, a 
born Pharisee. The plural bapicaiwv refers to his male ancestors, father, 
grandfather, and perhaps still further back, not, as Grotius thinks, to his 
father and mother, as the mother here, where the sect was concerned, could 
not be taken into account.° We may add, that Paul’s still affirming of 
himself the ®apıoaiov eivar is as little untrue as Phil. iii. 5, in opposition to 
Zeller. He designates himself as a Jew, who, as such, belonged to no other 
than the religious society of the Pharisees ; and particularly in the doctrine 
of the resurrection, Paul, as a Christian, continued to defend the confession 
of the Pharisees, in opposition to all Sadduceeism, according to its truth 
confirmed in the case of Christ Himself.” His contending against the legal 
righteousness, hypocrisy, etc., of the Pharisees, and his consequent labour- 
ing in an anti-Pharisaical sense, were directed not against the sect in itself, 
but against its moral and other perversions. Designated a Jew, Paul still 
remained what he was from his birth, a Pharisee, and as such an orthodox 
Jew, in contrast to Sadducean naturalism. — repi éAr. kal dvaot. verp. Eyo 
kpiv.| on account of hope, ete. ; hope and—and indeed, as regards its object— 
resurrection of the dead it is, on account of which I (éyé has the emphasis of 
the aroused consciousness of unjust treatment) am called in question.® 


1 Future, see on Matt. i. 21. 5 Baumgarten. 
2 Hom. Od. i. 302 ; Xen. Mem. ii. 3. 8. 8 It is otherwise with Phil. iii. 5, é& “Ep. 
3 Winer, p. 595 (E. T. 798). Tiveplehe 


4 Ver. 1. 8 Comp. xxiv. 15, xxvi. 6-8. 


\ 


450 CHAP. XXIII, 8-14. 


As the accusations contained in xxi. 28, o0roc . . . diddoxwv,’ were nothing 
else than hateful perversions of the proposition: “ This man preaches a 
new religion, which is to come in place of the Mosaic in its subsisting 
form ;’’ and as in this new religion, in point of fact, everything according 
to its highest aim culminated in the hope of the Messianic salvation, which 
will be realized by the resurrection of the dead:* so it follows that 
Paul has put the cause of the xpivoua: in the form most suited to the 
critical condition of the moment, without altering the ‘substance of the 
matter as it stood objectively.*— oräoıs tov bapic. kat Zadd.] without repe- 
tition of rav (see the critical remarks) : the Pharisees and Sadducees, the 
two parties conceived of together as the corporation of the Sanhedrim, ‘ 
became at variance,® and the mass — the multitude of those assembled — was 
divided (x°). 

Ver. 8. For the Sadducees, indeed, maintained, etc. — und: ayyehov whre 
mveuua] not even angel or spirit, generally. The unre rveuua is logically sub- 
ordinate to the und& ayy., inasmuch as rveüwa is conceived as being homo- 
geneous with ayyedoc ; for ra aupörepa divides the objects named into two 
classes, namely (1) avacraoıs, and (2) dyyedog and mvevua. Hence und& before 
ayyed. is to be defended, and not, in opposition to Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 
158, and Lachmann, to be changed into uyre.° In the certainly very im- 
portant codd.’ which have wre, this is to be viewed as a grammatical cor- 
rection, originating from the very old error, which already Chrysostom has 
and Kuinoel still assumes: augdtepov . . . Kal mepi TpLOv Aaußäverar. — 
The Sadducees® denied —as materialists, perhaps holding the theory of 
emanations —that there were angels and spirit-beings, i.e. independent 
spiritual realities besides God. To this category of rveiuara, denied by 
them, belonged also the spirits of the departed ; for they held the soul to 
be a refined matter, which perished (cuvagavicar) with the body.” But it is 
arbitrary, with Bengel, Kuinoel, and many others, to understand under 
mvevua anima defuncti exclusively. Reuss’? has a view running directly 
counter to the clear sense of the narrative. 

Ver. 9. The designed stirring up of party-feeling proved so successful,” 


1The untruth added to these accusations, 
é€t te kat “EAAnvas «.7.A., Paul might here 
with reason leave entirely out of considera- 
tion. 

21 Cor. xv. 

3 The procedure of Paul in helping himself 
with dialectic dexterity was accordingly this: 
he reduces the accusations contained in xxi. 
28 to the pure matter of fact, and he grasps 
this matter of fact (the announcement of the 
Messianic kingdom) in that form which was 
necessary for his object. ‘‘ Non deerat Paulo 
humana etiam prudentia, qua in bonum evan- 
gelii utens, columbae gerpentem utiliter mis- 
cebat et inimicorum dissidiis fruebatur,” 
Grotius. 

4 Comp. on Matt. iii. 6. 

5 xv. 2. 


6 See Klotz,ad Devar. p. 709; comp. also 
Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 315 (E. T. 867), and on 
Gal. i. 12. 

TABCEN. 

8 See on Matt. iii. 7. 

9 Joseph. Antt. xviii. 1. 4, Bell. ii. 8. 14. 

10 In Herzog’s Zncykl. XIII. p. 294. 

11 Baur and Zeller, following Schnecken- 
burger, p. 144 ff., contest the historical 
character of this event, because the two 
parties had already so long been rubbing 
against each other, that they could not have 
been so inflamed by the apple of discord 
thrown in among them by Paul; the sequel 
also contradicting it, as Paul a few days after- 
wards was accused by the chief priest and 
Sanhedrim before Felix. But in this view 
sufficient account is not taken of the frequent- 


CONSPIRACY TO SLAY PAUL. 431 


that some scribes,! who belonged to the Pharisaic half of the Sanhedrim, 
rose up and not only maintained the innocence of Paul against the other 
party, but also, with bitter offensiveness towards the latter, added the 
question : But if a spirit has spoken to him, or an angel? The question is an 
aposiopesis,” indicating the critical position of the matter in the case sup- 
posed, without expressing it, guid vero, si, etc. We may imagine the words 
uttered with a Jesuitically-treacherous look and gesture toward the Saddu- 
cees, to whom the speakers leave the task of supplying in thought an 
answer to this dubious question. — rvevua] is not, with Calovius and others, 
to be taken of the Holy Spirit, but without more precise definition as: a 
spirit, quite as in ver. 8, where Luke by his gloss prepares us for ver. 9. — 
éAdAyoev| giving him revelation concerning the éAric and äväcraoıc, ver. 6. A 
reference precisely to the narrative, which Paul had given of his conversion 
at xxii. 6 ff., is not indicated. 

Ver. 10. My dıaoraodn] that he might be torn in pieces.” The tribune saw 
the two parties so inflamed, that he feared lest they on both sides should 
seize on Paul— the one to maltreat him, and the other to take him into 
their protection against their opponents — and thus he might at length 
even be torn in pieces, as a sacrifice to their mutual fury ! — ix£A. rö orpar. 
karaß. k.r.A.] he ordered the soldiery to come down from the Antonia, and to 
draw him away from the midst of them. The reading karaßyvaı kai is a cor- 
rect resolution of the participial construction.‘ 

Vv. 11-14. Whether the appearance of Christ encouraging Paul to fur- 
ther stedfastness was a vision in a dream, or a vision in a waking state, 
perhaps in an ecstasy, cannot be determined, in opposition to Olshausen, 
who holds the latter as decided ® (v?). —eic "Iepovs. and eic 'Pöu.]) The 
preacher coming from without preaches into the eity.* Observe also, that 
Jerusalem and Rome are the capitals of the world, of the East and West. 
But a further advance, into Spain, were it otherwise demonstrable, would 
not be excluded by the intimation in this passage, since it fixes no termi- 
nus ad quem.’ — Ver. 12. ovorpodjw] a combination,® afterwards still more 
precisely described by ovvwuociav, a conspiracy. That the conspirators were 
zealots and sicarii, perhaps instigated by Ananias himself, concerning whom, 
however, it is not demonstrable that he was himself a Sadducee, as Kuinoel 
thinks, is not to be maintained. Certainly those Asiatics in xxi. 27. were 
concerned in it. — oi "Iovdaior] the Jews, as the opposition. This general 
statement is afterwards more precisely limited, ver. 13. — avedeu. Eavrovc] 


ly quite blind vehemence of passion, when 
suddenly and unexpectedly aroused, in parties 
whose mutual relations are strained. As this 
vehemence, particularly in the presence of 
the tribune, before whom the sore point of 
honour was touched, might easily overleap 
the boundaries of discretion and prudence ; 
so might the prudent concert for a joint ac- 
cusation subsequently take place, when the 
fit of passion was over. Comp. also Baum- 
garten, II. p. 197 f. 


1 ‘Os partis suae,”’ Bengel. 

2 Comp. on John vi. 62; Rom. ix. 22. 

3 Comp. Symm., 1 Sam. xv. 33 ; Herod. iii. 
13 ; Dem. 136. 15 ; Lucian, Asin. 32. 

4 See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 774. 

5 See on xvi. 9. 

® Comp. Mark xiv.9. See on Mark i. 39, 
also on ix. 28, xxvi. 20. 

7 In opposition to Otto, Pastoralor. p. 171. 

8 xix 40; 1 Macc. xiv. 44; Polyb. iv. 34.6 


452 CHAP. XXIII., 15-23. 


they cursed themselves, pronounced on themselves, in the event of transgres- 
sion, the D77, the curse of divine wrath and divine rejection, declaring that 
they would neither eat nor drink! until, etc. See on similar self-impreca- 
tions, which, in the event of the matter being frustrated, without the per- 
son’s own fault, could be removed by the Rabbins, Lightfoot i loe., Selden.” 
— we] with the subjunctive, because the matter is contemplated directly, 
and without av.*— Ver. 14. roic apy. x. r. mpeoß.] That they applied to the 
Sadducean Sanhedrists, is evident of itself from what goes before. — avabéu. 
avadeuatic.]| Winer, p. 434 (E. T. 584). 

Ver. 15. ‘Yueic] answering to the subsequent jueic dé. Thus they arrange 
the parts they were to play. — civ ro owveöpip] non vos soli, sed una cum col- 
legis vestris, of whom doubtless the Pharisees were not to be allowed to 
know the murderous plot, quo major significationi sit auctoritas, Grotius. — 
érw¢ avTov k.t.A.| design of the éugavicate tr. yA. From this also it follows 
what they were to notify, namely, that they wished the business of Paul to 
be more exactly taken cognisance of in the Sanhedrim than had already 
been done.*— rov aved. ait.| The design of Erornoi Eouev.’— mpd tov Eyyloaı 
avt.| so that you shall have nothing at all to do with him. 

Vv. 16-20. Whether the nephew of Paul was resident in Jerusalem ; 
whether, possibly, the whole family may have already, in the youth of the 
apostle, been transferred to Jerusalem, as Ewald conjectures, cannot be de- 
termined (z*). — zapayev.] belongs to the vivid minuteness with which the 
whole history is set forth.— Ver. 18. The centurion on military duty, 
without taking further part in the matter, simply fulfils what Paul has 
asked. — 6 d£ouıoc IlavAoc] he is now, as a Roman citizen, to be conceived 
in eustodia militaris.° — Ver. 19. émidaB. de race xeıp.] ‘ut fiduciam adoles- 
centis confirmaret,’’ Bengel. — davaywp. Kaz’ idiav] in order to hold a private 
conversation with him, he withdrew, with him, without the addition of a 
third person, perhaps to a special audience-chamber.’ — Ver. 20. örı] recita- 
tive. — ovvébevto] have made an agreement to request thee.’— d¢ uEAR.] i.e. 
under the pretext, as if they would.’ 

Vv. 21, 22. And now" they are in readiness to put into execution the 
avekeiv abröv,!! expecting that on thy part the promise, to have Paul brought on 
the morrow to the Sanhedrim, will take place. — éxayy. is neither jussum” 
nor nuntius,'* but, according to its constant meaning in the N. T., promissio. 
— éxiad.| he commanded to tell it, to divulge it, to no one.!* — éved. mp6g pe] 
Oratio variata. See on i. 4. 

Ver. 23. Ato riväc] some two; see on xix. 14.% It leaves the exact num- 


1 yevoactar, ver. 14, expresses both. 9 See Pflugk, ad Zur. Hec. 1152. It is other- 

2 de Synedr. p. 108 f. wise in ver. 15: in the opinion, as, etc. 

3 Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 499; Winer, p. 279 10 cat vov, see Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 135. 
(E. T. 371.) 11 Comp. ver. 15. 

4 Comp. xxiv. 22. 12 Münthe, Rosenmiiller. 

6 2 Chron. vi. 2; Ezek. xxı. 11; 1 Macc. iii. 13 Beza, Camerarius, Grotius, Alberti, Wolf ; 
58, v. 39, xiii. 3%. Comp. also ver. 20. Henry Stephanus even conjectured amayy. 

® Comp. on xxii. 30. See on xxiv. 27. 14 Comp. Dem. 354. 23; Judith vii. 9; not 

7 Comp. Luke ix. 10. elsewhere in N. T. _ [vii. 19. 


8 Comp. on John ix. 22. * 15 Comp. Thuc. viii. 100. 5: rıvesöVo. Luke 


RESCUED BY LYSIAS. 433 
ber in uncertainty.!— So considerable a force was ordered, in order to 
secure against any possible contingency of a further attempt. — orpariérac] 
is, on account of the succeeding irreic, to be understood of the usual Roman 
infantry,’ milites gravis armaturae, distinguished also from the peculiar 
kind of light infantry afterwards mentioned as defvoAd Bor. — deEwAd Bove] 
a word entirely strange to ancient Greek, perhaps at that time only current 
colloquially, and not finding its way into the written language. It first 
occurs in Theophylactus Simocatta,* and then again in the tenth century.* 
At all events, it must denote some kind of force under the command of 
the tribune, and that a light-armed infantry, as the de£ıoR. are distinguished 
both from the cavalry and from the orparıör. That they were infantry, 
their great number also proves. It is safest to regard them as a peculiar 
kind of the light troops called rorarii or velites, and that either as jacula- 
tores, javelin-throwers,° or funditores, slingers, for in Constant. Porpbyr.® 
they are expressly distinguished from the sagittarii, or bowmen,’ and from 
the targeteers, the peltastae, or cetrati.* Detailed grounds are wanting for 
a more definite decision.” The name degvo/., those who grasp with the right 
hand, is very naturally explained from their kind of weapon, which was 
restricted in its use to the right hand,-it was otherwise with the heavy- 
armed troops, and also with the bowmen and peltastae. This word has 
frequently been explained! halberdiers, life guardsmen, who protect the 
right side of the commander, to which, perhaps, the translation of the Vul- 
gate :"! lancearios, from the spear which the halberdiers carried, is to be re- 
ferred. Already the Coptic and Syriac p. translate stipatores. Meursius,'? 
on the other hand: military lietors."” But even apart from the passages of 
Theophyl. Simocatta, and Constant. Porphyr., of whom the latter particu- 
larly mentions the defo. alongside of the purely light-armed soldiers, and 
indeed alongside of mere ordinary soldiers: the great number of them is 
decisive against both views. For that the commander of a cohort should 
have had a body-guard, of which be could furnish two hundred men for 
the escort of a prisonor, is just as improbable, as that he should have had 
as many lictors at his disposal. On the whole, then, the reading de£ioß6Aovg 
in A," approved by Grotius and Valckenaer, is to be considered as a correct | 


1 Kriiger, § li. 16. 4. 

2 reCot arparıwraı, Herodian, i. 12. 19. 

3 In the seventh century. The passage in 
question, iv. 1, is as follows: mpoortarret de 
kat Öe£ıoAaßoıs Övvaneoıv ixvnAareıv K. Tas 
arpamovs macas Katachdadigeodar. From this 
it only follows that they must have been a 
light-armed force. {Wetstein). 

4In Constant. Porphyr. Themat. i. 1 (see 

5 Liv. xxii. 21. 

8 oi Se Acyouevot Touppapyar Eis Umovpyiav THY 
atpatnyav Eraxömoarv. 
afiwna Tov Exovra vd’ Eavrov oTpatiwras Tofo- 
opous TevTakoctous, Kat MEÄATATTAS TPLAaKOTLOVS, 
nat defvoAaBous exatov. 

7 To£obop. 


Innaiveı de tovovtov 


8 See Liv. xxxi. 36. 

® Ewald, p. 577, now explains it from Aaßn, 
grasp of the sword ; holding that they were 
spiculatores cum lanceis (Sueton. Claud. 35) ; 
and that they carried their sword, not on the 
left, but on the vight. But we do not see 
why this was ‘necessary for the sake of using 
their spears by the right hand. The sword 
on the left side would, indeed, have been least 
a hindrance to-them in the use of the spear. 
Earlier, Ewald took them to be slingers. 

10 Following Suidas : rapabvAares. 

11 Also Ath. and Sahidic. 

12 In the Glossar. 

18 “ Manum nimirum injiciebant maleficis.””, 

14 Syr. jaculantes dextra; Erp. jaculatores. 


454 CHAP. XXIII., 24-35. 


interpretation, whether they be understood to be javelin-throwers or sling- 
ers. — ard Tpirng pac re vurröoc] from this time, about nine in the evening, 
they were to have this force in readiness, because the convoy was to start, 
for the sake of the greatest possible security from the Jews, at the time of 
darkness and of the first sleep. 

Ver. 24. Kravy re rapacrzoa| still depends on eirev, ver. 23. The speech 
passes from the direct to the indirect form.! — xryvn] sarcinaria jumenta.* 
Whether they were asses or pack-horses, cannot be determined. Their 
destination was: that they, the centurions to whom the command was 
given, should make Paul mount on them, and so should bring him uninjured to 
Felix the procurator. The plural number of the animals is not, with Kuinoel, 
to be explained ‘in usum Pauli et militis ipsius custodis,’’ but, as iva &rıß. r. 
Mav. requires, only in usum Pauli, for whom, as the convoy admitted of 
no halt,® one or other of the «ryvy was to accompany it as a reserve, in order 
to be used by him in case of need. — On Feliz, the freedman of Claudius— 
by his third wife son-in-law of Agrippa I. and brother-in-law of Agrippi IL., 
and brother of Pallas the favourite of Nero,—that worthless person, who 
"per omnem saevitiam ac libidinem jus regium servili ingenio in Judaea 
provincia exercuit,'’* and after his procuratorship was accused to Nero by 
the Jews of Caesarea, but was acquitted through the intercession of Pallas, 
see Walch.° 

Vv. 25, 26. Tpärac] adds to eirev, ver. 23, a contemporaneous accom- 
panying action. Such passports, given with transported prisoners, were 
called at a later period, in the Cod. Theodos., elogia. — repiéy. r. rumov rovr.] 
which contained the following form ; ruroc,° the same as rpöroc, elsewhere,” 
corresponds entirely to the Latin exemplum, the literal form, the verbal con- 
tents of a letter.*— The lie in ver. 27° is a proof that in what follows the 
literal expression is authentically contained ; therefore there is no reason, 
with Olshausen, to regard the letter as a literary production of Luke. A 
documentary source, it is true, from which the verbal form came to him, 
cannot be specified, although possibilities of this nature may well be 
imagined.— ro kpariorw] See on Luke, Introd. § 3. 

Vv. 27-30." ovadrynof.| without the article: after he had been seized. Ob- 
serve, that Lysias uses not rdv dvOpwrov, but with a certain respect, and that 
not only for the Roman citizen, but also for the person of his prisoner, r. 
avdpa. — E£eılöumv avrov, uahov örı ‘Pow. &orı] contains a cunning falsification 
of the state of the facts ;!° for ver. 28 comp. with xxii. 30 proves that the 
tribune did not mean the second rescue of the apostle, xxiii. 10. There- 
fore the remark of Grotius is entirely mistaken, that ua@dv denotes ‘‘nul- 


1 See on xix. 27. 7 Kypke, II. p. 119; Grimm. on 1'Macce. xi. 
2 Caes. Bell. civ. i. 81. 29. 
3 vv. 31, 32. 8 Cic. ad Div. x. 5: “literae binae eodem 
4 Tac. Hist. v. 9. exemplo.” 
5 Diss. de Felice Judaeor. proour. Jen. 1747 ; 9 See in. loc. 
Ewald, p. 549 ff.; Gerlach, d. Röm. Statthalter 10 Comp. xxiv. 3, xxvi. 25. {19 ff. 
in Syr. u. Jud. p. 5 f£. 11 See xxi. 30-34, xxii. 26, 27, 30, xxiii. 1 ff., 


63 Macc. iii. 30. 12 xxi. 31-84 and xxii. 25 ff. 


PAUL INTRODUCED TO FELIX. 435 


lum certum tempus’’ but merely xa? &uadov generally ;! and so is Beza’s 
proposal to put a stop after avréy, and then to read: nadov dé bre K.T.A. — 
auröv.” — Ver. 30. umvvleiong . . . éceodac] The hurried letter-writer has 
mixed up two constructions : (1) uyvudeione dé poe ErıßovAns tHe weAAobonc Eoeo- 
Var, and (2) ugvudévtog ? dé poe EmißovAmv péddev EceoSa.* Similar blendings 
are also found in the classics.° As to the import of pyview, see on Luke 
XX. ole 

Vv. 31-34. Antipatris, on the road from Jerusalem to Caesarea, built by 
Herod I., and named after his father Antipater, was 26 miles, thus 51 
geographical miles, distant from Caesarea.° — dıa t7¢ vurröc] as in xvii. 10. 
Inexact statement @ potiori ; for, considering the great distance between 
Jerusalem and Antipatris, about 8 geographical miles, and as they did not 
set out from Jerusalem before nine in the evening,’ besides the night a part 
of the following forenoon must have been spent on the journey to Anti- 
patris, which roust, moreover, be conceived of as a very hurried one ; yet the 
following night is not, with Kuinoel,* to be included. — Ver. 32. édcavtec¢ 
«.7.A.| thus from their own foresight, because such a strong force was un- 
necessary at the distance which they had reached, and might be required 
in case of an uproar at Jerusalem, not according to the literal command of 
the tribune, ver. 23. — rove imreic] not also the defvoAdBovc, Whom they took 
back with them, as may be concluded from their not being mentioned. — 
Ver. 33. oirwes] ‘tad remotius nomen, secus atque expectaveris refertur.’’° 
—kai t. Hai.) simul et Paulum. — Ver. 34. Felix makes only a preliminary 
personal inguiry, but one necessary for the treatment of the cause and of 
the man, on a point on which the elogium contained no information. — 
roiac| is qualitative: from what kind of province. Cilicia was an imperial 
province. 

Ver. 35. Avaxotcoua] denotes the full and exact hearing,’ in contrast to 
what was now held as merely preliminary. — 76 rparröpıov rov 'Hp.] was the 
name given to the palace which Herod the Great had formerly built for 
himself, and which now served as the residence of the procurators. From 
our passage it follows that the place, in which Paul was temporarily kept 
in custody, was no common prison,!! but was within the praetorium. The 
determination of the manner of the custodia reorum depended on the pro- 
curator,” and the favorable elogium might have its influence in this respect. 


1 Nor does it mean, as Otto suggests: “on 
which occasion (in consequence of which) I 
learned.” The Vulgate, Erasmus, and Cal- 
vin correctly render : cognifo, comp. Phil. ii. 
19. Beza also correctly renders by edoctus, 
with the remark: “* Dissimulat ergo tribunis 
id, de quo reprehendi jure potuisset.’’ Cas- 
talio anticipated the misinterpretation of Gro- 
tius and Otto: ‘‘eripui ae Romanum esse 
didıei.” And so also Luther. The padwr ore 
«.r.A. is nothing else than émvyvots tre ‘Pw- 
patos eotı XxXii. 29. Comp. xvi. 38. 

2 Compare on this resumption after a long 
intervening sentence, Plat. Rep. p 398 A; 


and see, moreover, Matthiae, § 472; Winer, p. 
139 f. (E. T. 184.) 

3 Comp. Polyaen. ii. 14 1. 

4 See Grotius in loc.; Fritzsche, Conjectur. 
I. p. 39 f.; Winer, p. 528 (E. T. 710.) 

5 Bornemann, ad Xen. Anab. iv. 4. 18. 

8 See Robinson, III. p. 257 ff.; Ritter, Hrd*. 

7 Ver. 25. [XVL. p. 571. 

8 Against ver. 32. 

® Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 368. 

10 Xen. Oec. 11. 1. Cyrop. iv. 4.1; Polyb. iii, 
15.4; Dorvill. ad Char. p. 670. 

lly, 18. 

12 LT. 1, D. xlviii. 3. 


436 CHAP. XXIII.—NOTES, 


Notes BY AMERICAN EDITOR. 
(w?) I did not know that he is the high priest. V. 5. 


Scarcely had the apostle commenced his defence before the Jewish council, 
when Ananias, the high priest, in a spirit of injustice and brutality which 
characterized his general conduct, ordered him to be smitten on the mouth. 
‘“ Stung by an insult so flagrant, an outrage so undeserved, the naturally chol- 
eric temperament of Paul flamed into that sudden sense of anger, which 
ought to be controlled, but which can hardly be wanting in a truly noble char- 
acter.” And he exclaimed, “ God shall smite thee, thou whited wall.” His 
attention being directed, by some one standing by, to his severe utterance, he 
immediately ‘‘ apologized with exquisite urbanity and self-control.’’ Meyer 
thinks the apostle’s reply was ironical ; but this seems inconsistent with the 
character of the apostle, and the appeal to Scripture would in that state of 
mind be akin to irreverence. Numerous other explanations have been offered, 
the most satisfactory, though not free from objections, is that given by Bengel, 
Neander, Hacleett, Schaff, Howson and others ; which supposes that Paul meant 
that he did not recollect or consider that it was the high priest whom he was 
addressing. Gloag also approves, generally, of this solution. Farrar suggests 
that ‘‘ in a crowded assembly he had not noticed who the speaker was. Owing 
to his weakened sight, all that he saw before him was a blurred white figure, is- 
suing a brutal order, and to this person, who, in his external whiteness and in- 
ward worthlessness, thus reminded him of the plastered wall of a sepulchre, 
he had addressed his indignant denunciation. That he should retract it, on 
learning the hallowed position of the delinquent, was in accordance with that 
high breeding of the perfect gentleman, which in all his demeanor he habitually 
displayed.” This is the view which Alford, though not entirely satisfied with 
it, prefers. We concur with Taylor, who adopts this view, that Paul did not 
know what person had given the command to smite him, and adds, “If [am 
asked for an explanation of this ignorance of Paul, I find it in one or other of 
three suppositions : either the high priest did not wear the official robes by 
which he was usually distinguished ; or he was not at that time president of 
the council ; or, more simply still, the near-sightedness of the apostle prevent- 
ed him from recognizing the official dignity of the man who spoke so roughly.” 
After discussing at length the various hypotheses concerning the meaning of 
the words used by Paul, Eadie comes to the conclusion: “ that the apostle 
had not the knowledge present to his mind that it was the high-priest whom 
he was addressing. He does not formally apologize, but perhaps he intimates 
that the words might have been differently couched, that he might have ut- 
tered the malediction more solemnly, and with less of personal feeling mingled 
up with it. Nor does he retract it, though he may regret that it did fall upon 
a successor of Aaron.” 


(x?) Pharisees and Sadducees. VY. 7. 


The apostle, perceiving from the interruption which had already taken 
place, that all hope of a full hearing or fair treatment was vain, with com- 
mendable policy threw an apple of discord into the council. He knew that 


NOTES. 437 


the council was composed of Pharisees—with whom he held many things in 
common, such as the resurrection of the dead, the coming of the kingdom of 
God, the advent of the Messiah, and the intercourse of God with men, by 
means of angels, visions, and dreams—and of Sadducees, who denied all these 
doctrines and the idea of the supernatural generally. Therefore he said, ‘‘ Iam 
a Pharisee, and am being judged about the hope of the resurrection.” The two 
parties, which had long entertained toward each other an internecine enmity, 
now disagreed, and the strife became so violent that the apostle’s life was 
again in jeopardy ; but the chief captain interfered, and rescued him out of 
their hands. Josgphus says : ‘‘ The Pharisees are those who are esteemed most 
skilful in the exact explication of their laws. These ascribe all to fate and to 
God, and yet allow that to act what is right, or the contrary, is principally in 
the power of men. They say that all souls are incorruptible, but that the souls 
of good men only are removed into other bodies, but that the souls of bad 
men are subject to eternal punishment. The Sadducees take away fate entirely, 
and suppose that God is not concerned in our doing or not doing what is evil, 
and they say that to act what is good or what is evil is at men’s own choice. 
They also take away the belief of the immortal duration of the soul, and the 
punishment and reward in Hades.’’ 

Some, as Furrar, question the propriety of the course pursued by Paul at 
this crisis. But Alford justly says, ‘‘ Surely no defence of Paul for adopting 
this course is required, but all admiration is due to his skill and presence of 
mind.” Thomas writes: “Do not get a wrong impression of Paul's policy. 
Though we have seen him on various occasions displaying great accommoda- 
tiveness—now taking part in a Nazarite’s vow, in order to disarm the unrea- 
soning hostility of his countrymen ; now putting forward all the considera- 
tions which truth would authorize, in order to conciliate the mind of his Jew- 
ish audiences ; now availing himself of his Roman citizenship, in order to 
avoid the infliction of a cruel and unjust torture ; and now, in the case before 
us, taking advantage of the doctrine that divided his judges, in order to avoid 
their verdict of condemnation—in none of these strokes of policy is there the 
slightest approach to the disingenuous, the evasive, the shifting. In all 
there is an unbending honesty and an invincible courage.” 


(x?) The Lord stood by him. VY. 11. 


We have in the Acts the record of three such experiences in the life of Paul, 
after the Lord Jesus was seen of him on his way to Damascus. One in Cor- 
inth, when he was “in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling ;’ one 
on board the vessel during a long severe storm at sea ; and another in the pres- 
ent instance. On this passage Alford has the following excellent remarks : 
“ By these few words, the Lord assured him of a safe issue from his present 
troubles, of an accomplishment of his intention of visiting Rome, of the cer- 
tainty that he should preach the gospel and bear testimony there. So that 
they upheld and comforted him in the uncertainty of his life from the Jews, 
in the uncertainty of his liberation from prison at Cesarea, in the uncertainty 
of his surviving the storm in the Mediterranean, in the uncertainty of his fate 
on arriving at Rome. So may one crumb of divine grace and help be multi- 
plied to feed five thousand wants and anxieties.’’ Jacobus says on this verse : 
“It was a personal appearing of our Lord to Paul, not in a dream, but in an 


438 CHAP, XXIII,—NOTES. 


apparition, in which he was seen by Paul, as standing beside him, and was 
heard as addressing him.’ Alexander says: “Standing by, or over, him, per- 
haps as he lay upon his bed, though not necessarily in a dream, but rather in 
a waking vision.” He regards this divine message to Paul as an unqualified 
approval of the course he had been led to take before the council. In this 
opinion Barnes concurs : “ The appearance of our Lord in this case was a proof 
that he approved the course which Paul had taken before the Sanhedrim.”’ 


(z?) Paul’s sister’s son. V. 16. 


This is the only direct reference in Scripture to Paul’s family. It is uncer- 
tain whether Paul’s sister resided in Jerusalem, or whether the young man may 
have come up to Jerusalem with Paul, or had been sent thither for his educa- 
tion, as his uncle was before him. We know not even whether the act of 
kindness was prompted merely by natural affection, or by Christian sympathy 
as well. All that we know is that this obscure youth, probably only a lad, ren- 
dered to his celebrated uncle a very important service, the mention of which 
has immortalized his memory. 


CRITICAL REMARKS, 439 


CHAPTER XXIV. 


Ver. 1. tov mpeoß.] Lachm. and Born. read zpeo3. rwov, according to A B E 
8, min. Sahid. Arm. Sahid. Arm. Syr. p. Vulg. Theophyl. rıvöv was written 
on the margin as a gloss (see the exegetical remarks). — Ver. 3. karop9oudrov] 
Lachm. and Born. (following ABE N)read diopfouarov. which already Griesb. 
recommended. - Neither occurs elsewhere in the N. T. The decision is given 
by the preponderance of evidence in favour of dı0p9., which, besides, is the less 
usual word, — Ver. 5. orüoıw] A B ES, min. Copt. Vulg. Chrys. Theophyl. Oec. 
have ordoes. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Born. And 
rightly ; oraoıv was easily enough occasioned by the writing of ordois instead 
of oraoeıs (comp. NS). — Vv. 6-8. From xai kara to &rl oeis wanting in ABGH 
NS, min. vss. Beda, And there are many variations in detail. Condemned by 
Mill, Beng., Griesb., and deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly ; it is a com- 
pletion of the narrative of the orator. Had the words been original (Matth. 
and Born, defend them), no reason can be assigned for their omission. For 
Katd T. met. vou. HOA. Kpivecv in the mouth of the advocate who speaks in the 
name of his clients could be as little offensive as the preceding éxpatijoauev ; 
and the indirect complaint against Lysias, ver. 7, was very natural in the rela- 
tion of the Jews to this tribune, who had twice protected Paul against them. 
But even assuming that this complaint had really caused offence to the tran- 
scribers, it would have occasioned the omission of the passage merely from 
mapeidov, not from kai kara.— Ver, 9. ovverißevro] is decidedly attested, in 
opposition to the Recepta ouveßevro. — Ver. 10. eüßvuuörepov] A B E N, min. Vulg. 
Ath. have ei$vuws. Approved by Griesb., following Mill and Bengel ; adopted 
by Lachm. Tisch. Born. But how much easier it is to assume that the reference 
of the comparative remained unrecognised, than that it should have been 
added by a reflection of the transcribers !— Ver. 11. &v ‘Iepovc.] Lachm. Tisch, 
Born. have, and also Griesb. approved, eS Iepovo., according to A E H NS, min, 
This weight of evidence is decisive, as according to the difference in the rela- 
tion either preposition might be used. Ver. 12. éxicicracw] Lachm. reads 
éxiotao.v, according to ABE &, min. A transcriber’s error.— Ver. 13. After 
dtévavrac Lachm. and Born. have cou, according to A BE &, min., and several 
vss. Some have it before div. ; others have, also before duv., sometimes por and 
sometimes we (so Mill and Matth.). Various supplementary additions. — Ver. 
14. rois Ev ToiS] Elz. has merely év rois. But against this the witnesses are 
decisive, which have either ro15 év rois (so Griesb., Scholz, and others) or simply 
rois (so Lachm. Tisch. Born., following Matth.). If rois &v rois were original 
(so N**), then it is easy to explain how the other two readings might have 
originated through copyists—in the first instance, by oversight, the simple rois 
(A GH &* vss. Theophyl. Oec.), and then by way of explanation 2» rois (B). 
If, on the other hand, rois were original, then indeed the resolution of the 
dative construction of the passive by év might easily come into the text, but 
there would be no reason for the addition of rois before év.— Ver. 15. After 


‘440 CHAP. XXIV., 1-3. 


&oeodaı Elz. Scholz have vexpdv which, in deference to very important evidence 
was suspected by Griesb. and deleted by Lachm. Tisch. Born, A supplemen- 
tary addition. — Ver. 16. kat aurös] so ABCEG N. min. vss. Approved by 
Griesb., and adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. But Elz. Scholz have 02 airés. 
The reference of kai was not understood, and therefore sometimes de, sometimes 
ö2 kai was put. — Ver. 18. év ois] ABC E N, min. have &v ais, which Griesb. 
recommended, and Lachm., Scholz, Born. adopted. But the fem., in spite of 
the preponderance of its attestation, betrays its having originated through the 
preceding mpoodopus. — twis dé] Elz. has merely rıves, against decisive testi- 
mony. The dé was perplexing. — Ver. 19. éde.] BG H, min. Sahid. Aeth. Slav. 
Chrys. 1, Oec. have dei. Recommended by Griesb., and adopted by Beng. and 
Matth. But éde: is preponderantly attested by A C E NS, min. Syr. utr. Copt. 
Vulg. Chrys. 1, Theoph., and is much more delicate and suitable than the de- 
'manding dei. — Ver. 20. ri] Elz. has ei 11, against decisive witnesses, From 
ver. 19. — Ver. 22. aveßaA. 62 ait. 6 7A1=] Adopted, according to decisive tes- 
timony, by Griesb. and all modern critics except Matth. But Elz. has akovoas 
d? raüra 6 ®. ave. aitots, which Rinck defends. An amplifying gloss. — Ver. 
23. aitév] Elz. has tov IladAov, against decisive attestation. — 7) mpooepyeodaı] 
wanting in A BCE N, min., and several vss. ; amplifying addition, perhaps 
after x. 28. — Ver. 24. After 77 yvvaıni Elz, has aurov, and Lachm, : 77 wWia yvvaıkt, 
The critical witnesses are much divided between these three readings ; indeed 
several, like A, have even iia and aitod. Butin view of this diversity, both 
idia and aurov appear as additions, in order to fix the meaning conjux on TH 
yvvaıki. — After XpıoröovB E G &* min. Chrys. and several vss. have ’Inooör, 
which Rinck has approved, and Lachm., Scholz, Born. adopted. A frequent 
addition, which some vss. have before Xpıorov. — Ver. 25. tov ueAAovroS kpiuaros] 
“tod kpiuaros Tov wéAAovtos (Lachm. Tisch. Born.) is preponderantly attested, 
and therefore to be adopted. So also Elz., which, however, adds £osoda: 
(deleted by Scholz) ; and Tisch. has again inserted it, following G H min, and 
some Fathers. The word, just as being in itself quite superfluous, would have 
to be received, if it were more strongly attested. — Ver. 26. After NlavAoo Elz. 
has 67S Aton airov, against preponderating testimony. A gloss. — 27. ydpitas] 
Lachm. and Born. read yapıra, according to ABC S8* and some min, ; E G N** 
min. have yap. Thus for ydpitas there remains only a very weak attesta- 
tion (H, min, and some Fathers ; no vss.). The best attested reading, yapi7a, 
is the more to be adopted, as this accusative form, not elsewhere used in the 
N. T. (although to be read also in Jude 4), could not but occasion offence, 


Ver. 1. Mera dé révre ijuép.| The point of commencement is not to be reck- 
oned, with Cajetanus, Basnage, Michaelis, Stelz, Rosenmüller, Morus, 
Hildebrand, as the arrest of Paul in Jerusalem, —an opinion which has 
arisen from an erroneous computation of the twelve days in ver. 11,—nor 
yet with Calovius, Wetstein, and others, as the arrival of Paul at Caesarea, 
but as! his departure for Caesarea, We may add that the popular mode of 
expression does not necessarily denote that the fifth day had already elapsed, 
but may just as well denote on the fifth day.” That the latter view is to be 
assumed here, see on ver. 11. — era tov mpeoß,] of course, not the whole 


I Sce on ver. 11. ®2Comp. Matt. xxvii. 63, and see on Matt. xii. 40. 


PAUL ACCUSED BY TERTULLUS. 441 
Sanhedrists, but deputies who represented the council. It is obvious, withal, 
that the two parties in the Sanhedrim, after the variance temporarily aroused 
between them,! had in the interval bethought themselves of the matter, 
and united against the common enemy, in order to avert his eventual ac- 
quittal by the Roman authority.—Tertullus, a common Roman name,? was 
an orator forensis,® a public causidicus. Such speakers, who were very nu- 
merous in Rome and in the provinces, bore the classical name of the public 
orators : prropec,* in the older Greek ovvijyopor,® the advocates of the accusers. 
— ived. TO Hy. Kava Tov I1.] they laid information before the procurator against 
Paul. That this took place in writing, by a libel of accusation,® is not 
ailirmed by the text, which, by kar&ßn and the «A7Oévroc d& aurov immediately 
following, does not point to more than oral accusation.” The reciprocal 
rendering, comparuerunt,® is an unnecessary deviation from the usage in the 
Nee xxii 15, 22, xxv. 2, 15; John xiv. 21 f.; Heb. xi. 14, and else- 
where also not capable of being made good.° 

(a!) Vv. 2, 3. After the accusation brought against Paul the accused is 
summoned to appear, and now Tertullus commences the address of accu- 
sation itself, and that, after the manner of orators,’ with a captatio benevo- 
lentiae, yet basely flattering, to the judge. — The speech, embellished with 
‘rhetorical elegance, is to be rendered thus: As we are partaking, con- 
tinuously, of much peace through thee, and as improvements have taken place 
Sor this people on all sides and in all places through thy care, we acknowledge it, 
most excellent Felix, with all thanksgiving. Observe here, (1) that the orator 
with moAAnc eipyung «.t.2. praises Felix as pacator provineiae, which it was a 
peculiar glory of procurators to be ;"! (2) that the object of arodeyöueda is 
evident of itself from what precedes; (3) that ravry re kat ravrayov is not 
to be referred, as usually, to arodey., but, with Lachmann, to y.voyévor, 
because, according to the flattering character of the speech, dipdop. you. 
‚requires a definition of degree, and it is arbitrary mentally to supply woA26v. 
— Öiopdouara (see the critical remarks) are improved arrangements in the 
state and nation.” xkaropdouara would be successes, successful accomplish- 
ments. '* — xdvry] only here in the N. T., not semper, but towards all sides, 
quoquoversus, as in all classical writers ; with iota subscriptum, in opposition 
to Buttmann and others.'’® — On arod£yeodar, probare, *“ admittere cum as- 
sensu, gaudio, congratulatione.’’ *—How little, we may add, Felix, although 
he waged various contlicts with sicarii, sorcerers, and rebels, '7 merited this 


1 xxiii. 6 ff. 

2 See Wetstein. 

3 See Barth, ad Claudian. p. 76. 

4See Photius, p. 488, 12; Thomas Mag., 
Suidas. 

5 Dem. 1137. 5, 1849. pen.; Lucian. 7ox. 26 ; 
Hermann, Staatsalterth. § 142, 14. 

6 Camerarius, Grotius. 

7 Comp. xxiii. 15 xxv. 2, 15. 

8 Beza, Luther, Castalio, Wolf, and others, 
following the Vulgate. 

®Comp. Bornemann in Rosenmüller, Re- 
pert. II. p. 271; Krebs, p. 252 f. 


10 See Grotius in Joe. 

11 See Wetstein. 

12 Comp. Polyb. iii. 118. 12: ai ray woArrevpd- 
av dvopdwcers, Arist. Pol. iii. 13; Plut. Num. 
17, al. On the Greek idiom of the word, see 
Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 250 f. 

13 See Raphel, Polyh. in loc. ; Lobeck, l.c. 

14 Vulgate and others. 

15 See Ellendt, Zea. Soph. II. p. 493. 

16 Reiske, Ind. Dem. p. 66 ; sce Loesner, p, 
229; Krebs in loc. 

17 Joseph. Bell. ii. 13. 2, Antt. xx. 8.5f. 


442 CHAP. XXIv., 4-11. 


"praise on the whole, may be seen in Tacitus ;* and what a contrast to it was 
the complaint raised against him after his departure by the Jews before the 
emperor !? 

Ver. 4. That, however, I may not longer, by a more lengthened discourse 
than I shall hold, detain thee, keep thee from thy business.* — Aesövrov is 
not to be supplied with ovvröuwc,* but it contains the definition of measure 
to dxovca. The request for a hearing of brief duration is, at the same time, 
the promise of aconcise discourse. — 7 of énvesx.| with thy, thine own pe- 
culiar, clemency.® 

Vv. 5-8. Kai xara ... &mi o& is to be deleted. See the critical re- 
marks (B*).—ebpövrec yap k.r.A.] The structure of the sentence is anacoluthie, 
as Grotius already saw. Luke has departed from the construction ; instead 
of continuing, ver. 6, with &xparyoauev aitév, he, led astray by the preced- 
ing relative construction, brings the principal verb also into connection 
with the relative.° — The yap is namely.’ — Examples of Aoıuöc and pestis, 
as designating men bringing destruction, may be seen in Grotius and Wet- 
stein. — riv oikovu.] is here, in the mouth of a Roman, before a Roman 
tribunal, to be understood of the Roman orbis terrarum.” — mpwroorärnv] 
front-rank man, file-leader.*° — rov Nalwpaiwv] a contemptuous appellation 
of Christians as the followers of Jesus of Nazareth, whose presumed de- 
scent from Nazareth stamped Him as a false Messiah.!!— öc kai r. iepov 
k.T.2.] who even the temple, etc. —Ver. 8. rap’ od] refers, as the preceding 
mention of Lysias is spurious, to Paul, to whom, however, it could not 
have been referred, were the preceding portion genuine, in opposition to 
Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Limborch, Rosenmiiller, who have, moreover, 
arbitrarily understood dvaxpivac of a quaestio per tormenta ; it denotes 
judicial examination generally. —6év] = 4@ by attraction—That we have 
not before us the speech of Tertullus, in a quite exact reproduction is obvi- 
ous of itself, as the source of the narrative could only be the communica- 
tion of Paul. The beginning, so much in contrast with the rest, is doubt- 
less most faithfully reproduced, impressing itself, as it naturally did, alike 
as the commencement of the imposing trial and by reason of the singularly 
pompous flattery, with the most literal precision on the recollection of the 
apostle and, through his communication, on the memory of Luke. 

Ver. 9. Suverévevto «.r.A.] but the Jews also jointly set upon him ; they 
united their attack against Paul with that of their advocate, inasmuch as 
they indicated the contents of his statements to be the true state of the 
case.13 — gaoxovte¢] comp. xxv. 19; and see on Rom. i. 22, 


1 Hist. v. 9, Ann. xii. 54. Vleet 
2 Joseph. Antt. xx. 8.9 f. 7 See on Matt. i. 18. 
3On eykorteı, see Valckenaer, Schol. p. 8 Grimm on 1 Macc. x. 61. 
600 f. emi wActov, as in xx. 9: Judith xiii. 1. 9 See on Luke ii. 1. 
See on iv. 17. Comp. Plat. Rep. p. 572 B: em 10 Thue. v. 71. 2, and Krüger in loc. 
mAcov c&yx nev eimeiv. 11 John vii. 42. 
4 Kuinoel, Olshausen, and others. 12 Comp. erı re kai, Xxi. 28. 
5 See on 2 Cor. x. 1. 13 Comp. on ovvemctivepar, Plat. Phil. p. 16 


® Comp. Winer, pp. 330, 528 (E. T. 442,710); A; Xen. Cyrop. iv. 2.33 Polyb. i, 31. 2, ii. 3, 
Buttmann, p. 252 (E. T. 293). Comp.on Rom. 6; also in the LXX. 


PAUL’S DEFENCE, 443 


€ 


Ver. 10. In what a dignified, calm, and wise manner does Paul open his 
address ! — ix moAAav érov] therefore thou hast an ample judicial experi- 
ence as regards the circumstances of the nation and their character. 
‘‘ Novus aliquis praeses propter inscitiam forte perculsus esset tam atroci 
delatione,’’ Calvin. — Felix entered on the procuratorship after the ban- 
ishment of his predecessor Cumanus, in the year 52.' Even in the time of 
Cumanus he had great influence, particularly in Samaria, without, how- 
ever, being actually governor of that country, as is incorrectly stated in 
Tac. Ann. xii. 54 in contradiction to Josephus, or of ‘Upper Galilee, as is 
erroneously inferred by Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Hildebrand, and others.” He 
was thus at this time * probably in the seventh year of his procuratorship.* 
— xpitiv] is not, with Beza, Grotius, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and others (after 
DIV), to be taken generally as praefectus, rector, but specially as judge ; 
for the judicial position of Felix in his procuratorship was the point here 
concerned.® — eudyuörepov] the more cheerfully, namely, than I would be 
able to do if thou wert still new in this judicial office. — ra repi &uavrov 
aroAoyovuaı] I bring forward in defence the things concerning myself.° 

Ver. 11. Paul adds a more special reason subordinate to the general one 
(ver. 10), for his euduuörepov . . . amoAoyoüuar. Since he had returned from 
abroad only twelve days ago, and accordingly the ground of facts on which 
they wished him condemned ’ was still quite new, the procurator, with his 
long judicial experience among the Jewish people, could the less avoid the 
most thorough examination of the matter. —ov rAeiove . . . auépar dexadvo] 
without 7, which Elz. has as a gloss.*—aq@’ 7¢ avéByv| from the day on 
which? I had come up. This is the day of the accomplished avaßaiveı, the 
day of the arrival, not of the departure from Caesarea.’ As to the reckon- 
ing of the twelve days, it is to be observed : (1) That by the present ¢icv the 
inclusion of the days already spent at Caesarea is imperatively required. 
Hence the assumption of Heinrichs, Hildebrand, and others is to be re- 
jected as decidedly erroneous: ‘* Dies, quibus P. jam Caesareae fuerat, non 
numerantur ; ibi enim (!!) in custodia tumultum movere non poterat.’’ ” 
(2) That ov zAeiove eicı permits us to regard as the current day on which the 
discussion occurred, either the twelfth or the (not yet elapsed) thirteenth ; 


1 According to Wieseler, 53; see Joseph. 
ANTEX 1. 

2 From Joseph. Bell. ii. 12. 8. See Anger, 
de temp. rat. p. 88; Wieseler, p. 67 f. ; comp. 
also Gerlach. /.c., p. 75; Ewald, p. 549. 

3 See Introduction, § 4. 

4 To reduce the éx moAAav Erwv to three years 
(Stölting, Beitr. 2. Exeg. d. Paul. Br. p. 192), 
even apart from the duration of the govern- 
ment of Felix being thereby assumed as much 
too short (ver. 27), is rendered exegetically im- 
possible by the expression itself. For acaptatio 
benevolentiae, so d«finite (érav) a statement of 
time, if by woAAwv were meant only three 
years, would be very inappropriate, as the 
words would contain a flat untruth. How 


easily would a more flexible expression have 
presented itself for such a purpose, such as ek 
moAAoD xpovov, Or €& ikaywy (OT mAcıovwy) erwv | 

6 On the participle with erıoran., see Winer, 
p. 324 (E. T. 435). 

6 Comp. Plat. Crit. p. 54 B, Phaed. p. 69 D, 
Conv. p. 174 D, and Stallb. in loc., Pol. iv. p. 
420 B, 453 C ; Dem. 227. 13, 407.19; Thue. iii. 
52. 4. 

7 To Lepoy Ereipage BeByA@oar, COMP, XXi. 28. 

8 See on iv. 22. 

9 ad’ ns, SC. Nuepas, COMP. ON 1. 2, 22. 

10 Wieseler. Comp. xi. 2; Kühner, § 444; 
Winer, p. 258 (E. T. 343). 

11 Kuinoel. 


444 CHAP. XXIv., 12-15. 


> 


as, however, Paul wished to express as short a period as possible, the latter 
view is to be preferred, There accordingly results the following calcula- 
tion :— 
I. Day of arrival in Jerusalem, xxi. 15-17. 
II. Meeting with James, xxi. 18 ff. 


VI. J Arrest of the apostle, xxi. 27 ff. 
VIII. Paul before the Sanhedrim, xxii. 30, xxiii. 1-10. 
. ) Jewish conspiracy and its disclosures, xxiii. 12 ff. On the same 
| day Paul, before midnight, is brought away from Jerusalem, 
| xxiii. 23, 31. 
X. L Mera dé mevre juépac K.T.A., XXiv. 1. 

XI. | 
XI | 
XAT: ) The current day. 


It further serves to justify this calculation: (1) that it sufficiently agrees 
with the vague statement in xxi. 27: cc 68 EueAAov ai Extra juépar ovvreisiodar, 
to place the arrest on the jifth day of that week ; (2) that, as terminus a quo 
for pera révte juépac, Xxiv. 1, the ninth day may not only be assumed gen- 
erally, because the immediately preceding section of the narrative, xxiii. 81 
ff., commences with the departure of Paul from Jerusalem, but is also 
specially indicated by the connection, inasmuch as this pera wévre juép. SO COr- 
responds to the 7H dé éxatpiov, xxiii. 32, that there is presented for both 
statements of time one and the same point of commencement, namely, the 
day on which the convoy, after nine in the evening, left Jerusalem. Anger? 
deviates from this reckoning in the two points, that he places as the first of 
the five days, xxiv. 1, the day of the arrival at Caesarea ; and he does not 
include at all in the reckoning the day on which Paul came to Jerusalem, 
because Paul reached it, perhaps, only after sunset. But the former is un- 
necessary,” and the datter would not only be at variance with Paul’s own 
words, aq’ 75 avéBnv mpookvvno. év "Iepovc., ver. 11, by which the day of ar- 
rival was included, but also would bring the reckoning of the apostle into 
contradiction with xxi. 17, 18 (rj dé Zriovon). Wieseler ® has reckoned the 
days in an entirely different manner—but in connection with his opinion, 
not to be approved, that the érra juépar in xxi. 27 are to be understood of 
the Pentecostal week—namely : two days for the journey to Jerusalem ; the 
third day, interview with James ; the fourth, his arrest in the temple, Pen- 
tecost ; the jifth, the sitting of the Sanhedrim; the sizth, his removal to 
Caesarea ; the seventh, his arrival there ; the twelfth, the departure of Ana- 
nias from Jerusalem, xxiv. 1; the thirteenth, the hearing before Felix. — 
xpooxvrycuv| thus with quite an innocent and legally religious design. — 
eic 'Iepovo.] (see the critical remarks) belongs to avéByv. 


1 De temp. rat. p. 110. 2 See above, 3p. 103 f.., and on Gal. p. 588. 


PAUL’S DEFENCE. > 445 


Vv. 12-21. In the following speech Paul first disclaims the accusations 
of his opponents generally and on the whole as groundless ;! then gives a 
justifying explanation of the expression rpwrooratyy rjc Tov NaLwp. aipéc., by 
which they had maliciously wished to bring him into suspicion ;* and 
lastly refutes the special accusation : «ai ro iepov Ereip. BeßnAooaı.* 

Vv. 12, 13. ’Eriovoraoıw] uproar.* — Both after obre év taic ovvay. and after 
ovte kata ryv mo, throughout the city, eupov ue mpdg rıva diakeyöuevov, 7 Emiov- 
oTacın rorwoüvra öxAov is mentally to be supplied.° 

Vv. 14, 15. Aé] opposes the positive confession, which now follows, to 
the preceding merely negative assurance ;° but, doubtless, I confess: ‘‘ Asa 
Christian I reverence the same God with the Jews, follow the same rule of 
faith, and I have the same hope on God, that there shall be a resurrection,”’ 
etc. Thus, notwithstanding that malicious rpwroorarnv rc Tov Nat. aip., 
I am in nowise an enemy of the existing religion, protected by the Roman 
laws! And with full truth could this ‘‘confessio ingenua, voluntaria, 
plena’’‘ be furnished by Paul,* as he recognised in Christianity the com- 
pletion of the divine law and the fulfilment of the prophets ; and this rec- 
ognition, as regards the law, necessarily presupposes the belief in all that 
is written in the law, namely, in its connection with the fulfilment effected 
by Christ,’ although the law as arule of justification has reached its end 
in Christ.!° — xara tiv ödov K.7.A.] according to the way, which, etc., according 
to the Christian mode of life,!! — 7» Aéy. aipeoıv] for Tertullus had, ver. 5, 
used cipeo:c, in itself a vor media, school, party,'” in a bad sense, a schismatic 
party, sect. — 0 rarpow Oew] the God worshipped by the ancestors of my 
nation and from them received.!? How inviolable were even to the heathen 
their ancestral gods ! 4 — morebwv «.7.A.] is now that which is emphatically 
indicated by ovrw : in this way: namely, believing all things, etc.’° — xara tov 
vouov | throughout the law-book. — éArida iywv| contains a characteristic circum- 
stance accompanying miorewv mace K.T.A.—Kal avtot oizor| even they them- 
selves there, is spoken deıkrıroc to those present as the representatives of the 
nation in the transaction. It was natural that this point of view in its gen- 
erality, should admit no reference to the Sadducean deviation from the 
national belief of the resurrection, or at all to special differences concerning 
this dogma. It is just as certain that Paul understood dıraiov and adikwv 
morally, and not according to the sense of the self-conceit of the descendants 
of Abraham.'* — rpooö£xovraı] expectant. The hope is treated as objective.” 


lyv. 12, 13. 10 Rom. =. 4. 
2 vv. 14-16. WSK 4, IR 2 REx, 28. 
8 vv. 17-21. (Ap. i. 20. 12 See Wetstein on 1 Cor. xi. 19. 


IS Be. 
14 See Wetstein and Kypke. II. p. 122 f., and 
on the expression, very common also among 


ALXX. Num, xxvi. 9, xvi. 40; Joseph. c. 
5 See examples of mapacrnaar, to present, i.e. 
to make good, to prove, in Kypke, II, p. 121 


f.; Morus, ad Longin. p. 43; and from Philo 
in Loesner, p. 230 f. 

6 vv. 12, 13. 

7 Bengel. 

In opposition to Baur and Zeller; also 
Schneckenburger, p. 147 f. 

® Comp. Rom. iii. 31, xiii. 8 ff. ; Gal. iii. 34. 


the Greeks, Lobeck, Aglaoph. p. 1206, 769 ff. ; 
Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 11. 538 f. 

15 Comp. Bornemann in Rosenmüller, Re- 
pert. II. p. 277; Bernhardy, p. 284. 

16 Bertholdt, Christol. pp. 176 ff., 203 ff.). 
Comp. on Luke xiv. 14. 

17 See on Rom, viii. 24. Comp. Eur. Alc, 


446 CHAP, XXIV., 16-22. 


Ver. 16. ’Ev robrw] on this account, as in John xvi. 20. It refers to the 
whole contents of the confession just expressed in vv. 14, 15, as that on 
which the moral striving, which Paul constantly (dıaravr.) has, has its 
causal basis. — xa auröc] et ipse, like other true confessors of this faith and 
this hope. — aoxo] I exercise myself, i.e. in eo laboro, studeo ;* often also in 
classical writers with the infinitive.? — rpöc rov Beöv x.7.2.] ethical reference.*® 
The good conscience, xxiii. 1 is conceived as having suffered no offence,‘ i.e. 
as unshaken, preserved in its unimpaired equilibrium, 

Ver. 17. A’ érév dE mAcıdvov] interjectis autem pluribus annis. The dé leads 
over to the defence on the special point of accusation in ver. 6. Regarding 
dıd, after.© Paul means the four years, which had elapsed since his last 
visit to Jerusalem.* How does the very fact of this long alibi, preceding 
the short period of my present visit, witness against that accusation ! — eic 
ro &3vo¢e uwov| for my nation. What a contrast in this patriotic love to the 
hostile calumnies of his accusers! And Paul might so speak, for the Greek 
and Asiatic contributions which he had brought’ were destined for the 
support of the Jerusalem Christians, who for the most part consisted of 
native Jews. If he conveyed alms for these, he assisted in them his nation, 
in doing which he cherished the national point of view, that the Gentiles, 
having become partakers of the spiritual blessings of the Jews, owed cor- 
poreal aid to these in turn.* — mpoogopäc] i.e. festival offerings. The perform- 
ance of these had been among the objects of the journey. The taking on 
him the Nazarite offerings was only induced after his arrival by eircum- 
stances. Whether Paul defrayed the expenses of the Nazarite offerings 
from the contribution-moneys,? is neither here nor elsewhere said, and can- 
not be determined. 

Vv. 18, 19. "Ev oic, during which, applies to the zpocdopdc, during which 
sacrificial occupations.’’ ‘‘Graeci, licet alius generis nomen praecesserit, 
saepe neutro plurali pronominis utuntur, generalem vocabuli notionem 
respicientes. ’?!°— jjyviouévov] purified, asa Nazarite,'! thus, in an unobjection- 
able and holy condition, without multitude and without tumult. — A point 
is not, with Griesbach, Scholz, and de Wette, to be placed after Sopi ov, 
because otherwise tivéc dé «.7.A. would be an imperfect sentence, which the 
simplicity of the structure of the discourse? does not justify our assuming. 
Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Bornemann have correctly put only a comma, 
It is accordingly to be explained in such a way, that Paul with eipov .. . 


131; Job ii. 9; Isa. xxviii. 10; Tit. ii. 13; 
and comp. on Gal. v. 5. 

1 Stallb. ad Plat. Rep. p. 389 C. 

2 See Sturz, Lew. Xen. I. p. 439. 

3 Rom. v. 1. 

4 ampock., here passive, comp. on Phil. i. 10. 

5 Not while (in opposition to Stilting, Beitr. 
2. Exegese d. Paulin. Briefe, 1869, p. 163 f ), 
as if Paul would say : while I have done this 
(the aoxety K.r.X.) already for several years : 
which neither stands in the text, nor would 
be snitable after the Stamavtos already express- 


ing far more. Bengel gives correctly the 
practical significance in this statement of 
time. See on Gal. ii. 1. 

6 xviii. 22. 

71 Cor. xvi. 1 ff. ; 2 Cor. viii.9; Rom. xy. 
aD: 

8 Rom. xv. 27. 

® Baumgarten. 

10 Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. vii. 7. 14. Comp. 
Matthiae, p. 987; Poppo, ad Thue. iii. 97. 3. 

11 See xxi. 27. 

12 It is otherwise in ver. 5 f. 


HIS CONFINEMENT. 447 


rw&t de K.r.%. glances back to what was said in ver. 5 f., which had sounded 
as if the Sanhedrists had found him. On the other hand, rivic dé forms 
the contrast, introducing the actual position of the matter, in which dé 
withal refers to suppressam aliquam partem sententiae,' thus: Thereupon 
there found me—not these, as they asserted, ver. 5,—Qut doubtless certain 
Asiatic Jews.” — ide] The sense of the praeterite, and that without äv, is 
here essential; for the Asiatics must have appeared, like the Sanhedrists, 
before the procurator, if they, etc. That this did not happen, isa fact of the 
past.? — ei rı Eyoıev, in so far as they should have ought, subjective possibility. 
On & with the optative, and in the following sentence the indicative, see 
Bernhardy.* 

Vv. 20, 21. Or else? let these there, pointing to the Sanhedrists present, 
say what wrong they found in me, while I stood before the Sanhedrim, unless in 
respect to this one exclamation, which I made, ete. — ordvroc pov «.7.2. forbids 
us to refer otra to the Asiatic Jews, ver. 18.°—7) repi pace raurnc gwr7c| 
The comparative 7 after ri without 4220 is found also in the classics.’ The 
article is not placed before gwvjc, because the sense is: epi raurnc wag ovong 
gwrvic.® The exclamation, xxiii. 6, was really the only one which Paul had 
made in the Sanhedrim. epi refers back to adixnua. In respect of this ex- 
clamation I must have offended, if they have found an adiknua inme! In 
this one exclamation must lie the crime discovered inme! A holy irony. 
— 7c instead of 7v, attracted by gwr7jc.° 

Ver. 22. With the frank challenge to his accusers! Paul closes his speech. 
But Felix, who declares that he wished still to institute a further examina- 
tion of the matter with the assistance of Lysias, decides for the present on 
an adjournment: aveBarero avitoic, ampliavit eos, both parties. He pro- 
nounced until further investigation the non liquet,"' and for the time being 
adjourned the settlement of the accusation.!? — axpiBéotepov eidd¢ ra rept THC 
ödov] The only correct interpretation is: because he knew more exactly what 
referred to Christianity.4% As Felix had been procurator for more than six 
years, and as Christianity was diffused everywhere in Judaea, even in 
Caesarea itself, it was natural that he shduld have an axpıß&orepov Knowl- 
edge of the circumstances of that religion than was given to him in the 
present discussion ; therefore he considered it the most fitting course to 
leave the matter still in suspense. In doing so he prudently satisfied, on 
the one hand, his regard for the favour of the Jews! by not giving Paul his 
liberty ; while, on the other hand, he satisfied his better intelligence about 


1 Hermann, ad Philoctet. 16. 8 Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. iv. 7.5. Comp. 


2 Comp. Bornemann, Schol.in Luk. p. 184, 
and in Rosenmüller, Repert. II. p. 278. 

3 Comp. Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 187 (E. T. 
216 f.). 

4p. 386 f.; Winer, p. 276 (E. T. 367). 

® As certainly those absent can make no 
statement, comp. Baeumlein, Partik. p. 126 f. 

6 Ewald. Comp. ver. 15. 

7 Alciphr. Zp. iii. 21; Plat. Crit. p. 53E; 
Kühner, § 747, A. 1. Comp. on John xiii. 10. 


Stallb. ad Plat. Apol. 18 A, Gorg. p. 510 D. 

® Buttmann, newt. Gr. 247 (E. T. 287). 

10 yy. 20, 21. 

11 Cie. Cluent. 28, Brisson. formul. 

12 See on the judicial term avaBaddcodar 
(Dem. 1042 ult.), Wetstein, and Kypke, II. p. 
123 f. 

13 Ver. 14. 

14 Comp. ver. 27. 


448 CHAP. XXIV., 23-27. 


Christianity, by which, notwithstanding his badness in other respects, he 
felt himself precluded from pleasing the Jews and condemning the apostle. 
This connection, which in essentials the Vulgate, Chrysostom, Erasmus, 
Luther, Castalio, Wolf, and others! have expressed, has been often mis- 
taken. Beza and Grotius, followed by Rosenmüller, Heinrichs, and Ewald, 
regard dxpiBéorepov . . . ddov as part of the speech of Felix : ‘* Ubi exac- 
tius didicero, quid sit de hac secta, et ubi Lysias venerit, causam illam ter- 
minabo.? But so late a bringing in of the eizév is entirely without prece- 
dent in the N. T.? Michaelis and Morus resolve eidé¢ by guamquam ; not- 
withstanding his better knowledge of Christianity, Felix did not release 
Paul. But this resolution is the less suggested by the relation of the parti- 
ciple to the verb, as afterwards, ver. 23, the specially mild treatment of the 
apostle is expressly stated. According to de Wette,‘ the sense is: ‘As 
he needed no further hearing of the accused, and it was only necessary now 
to hear the tribune.’’ But the reference to the tribune is only to be re- 
garded as a welcome pretext and evasion; an actual hearing of Lysias would 
have been reported in the sequel of the history. Lastly, Kuinoel errone- 
ously renders: when he had inquired more exactly, which eidé¢ does not 
mean. — 7d kal’ iuac] your matters, not: your misdeeds,° as if it were ra xa? 
buav.® 

Ver. 23. Avavaé.] belongs, like eizév, to aveBar_ero ; and, yet ré has prepon- 
derant testimony against it, having given orders.’—rnpeiodaı avtov k.r.A.] that 
he should be kept in custody and should have relaaation. He was to have rest,® to 
be spared all annoyance.” Usually äveoıv is understood of release from chains, 
eustodia libera, ovdaxy üadeconoc;,! but without indication of this special 
reference in the text, and against ver. 27. From ro éxarovrdpyy it is rather to 
be inferred that the present custody was the usual cwstodia militaris, in 
which, however, Paul was to be treated with mildness and to be left with- 
out other molestation. — kai undéva kwAveıw] the construction is active: and 
that he, the centurion, should hinder no one. —rév idiwv aurov] is not to be 
understood of the Jewish servants of the procurator, but of those belonging 
to the apostle, They were his friends and disciples, among whom were per- 
haps also relatives.!' They were allowed to be at hand and serviceable for 
the satisfaction of his wants. 

Ver. 24. Ilapayev.] denotes the coming along of Felix and Drusilla to the 
prison,’ where they wished to hear Paul. Grotius thinks that it refers to 
the fetching of Drusilla as his wife, which took place at this time. But 
this must have been more precisely indicated, and is also not chronologically 


1 Comp. Bengel: ‘‘consilia dilatoria, tuta 8 “ Requiem,’ Vulgate. 
mundo in rebus divinis.” ® Comp. Plat. Pol. ix. p.590 B: xaAaceı re 
2 Grotius. kar avegeı. Polyb. i. 66. 10: aveots cat axoAN. 
3 See also Bornemann, and Rosenmiiller, Joseph. Anté. xviii. 6. 10: dvAaxh ev yap «ai 
Repert. II. p. 281 f. THPNCLS HV, META MEVTOL avETEWS THS Eis THY 
4 Comp. Wetstein. diaırav. So correctly also Wieseler, p. 381. 
5 So Böttger, Beitr. II. p. 12, as a threat to 10 Arrian. ii. 15.7; see on it, Geib, Gesch. 
the Jews. d. Rim. Criminalprocesses, p. 562 f. 
® On d:ayveso., comp. xxiii. 15. 31 xxiii. 16. 


7 Comp. keAevoas, Xxiii. 35. 12 xxiii. 35. 


ADDRESS BEFORE FELIX AND DRUSILLA. 449 


suitable, as the marriage of Felix with Drusilla occurred much earlier.! 
— On the beautiful Drusilla, the third wife of Felix,” the daughter of 
Agrippa I. and sister of Agrippa 11., who was at first betrothed to Antiochus 
Epiphanes, the prince of Commagene, but afterwards, because the latter 
would not allow himself to be circumcised, was married to Azizus, king of 
Emesa,* and lastly was, with the help of the sorcerer Simon, estranged from 
her husband and married by Felix, whose first wife, according to Tac. 
Hist. v. 9, the granddaughter of Antony and Cleopatra,‘ is said to have been 
also called Drusilla.® — pereréup. 7. IL.] certainly at the desire of his Jewish 
wife, whose curiosity was interested about so well-known a preacher of 
Christ. 

Vv. 25, 26. What a sacredly bold tidelity to his calling! Before one, 
who practised all manner of wnrighteousness and incontinence—the victim of 
his lust sat beside him !—‘‘ cuncta malefacta sibi ömpune ratus,’’ ° Paul, his 
defenceless prisoner, discoursed on righteousness, continence, and the impend- 
ing last judgment. Such is the majesty of the apostolic spirit in its anödeı£ıc.? 
The extraordinary phenomenon strikes even the heart of Felix ; he trem- 
bles (c*). But his ruling worldliness quickly suppresses the disturbing 
promptings of his conscience ; with the address of a man of the world, the 
conference is broken off; Paul is sent back to his prison; and Felix—re- 
mains reprobate enough to expect from such a man, and in spite of the Lex 
Julia de repetundis, a bribe, and for this purpose in fact subsequently to hold 
several conversations with him. — ro viv &yov] for the present.” — xaipov dé 
petar.| tempus opportunum nactus. Here consequently Paul had spoken 
aratpoc.’— A comma only is to be placed after peraxa2. oe, as EArilwv, ver. 
26, does not stand for the finite verb, but is a further definition to arexpidn. 
Also before dio, wherefore, a comma only is to be placed. — ypyuara] Certainly 
Felix had not remained in ignorance how the love of the Christians had 
their money in readiness for Paul. ‘‘Sic thesaurum evangelii omisit infeliz 
Feliz,” Bengel. 

Ver. 27. Avetiac dé mAnpwß. | namely, from the commencement of the imprison- 
ment at Caesarea.—On the time of the accession of Festus, 61; see Introd. $4.'° 
— yäpıra (see the critical remarks) xatafécba, to lay down, deposit, thanks for 
himself, i.e. to earn for himself thanks," to establish claims to their gratitude. 
An old classical expression.’ Grotius aptly says: ‘‘ Est locutio bene Graeca 


158 or 54. See Wieseler, p. 80. 

2 Suet. Claud. 28. 

3 Joseph. Antt. xx. 7. 1. 

4 Suetonius, Jc., calls him “trium regi- 
narum maritum.’’ We know only the two. 

5 See Gerlach in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1869, 
p. 68 f.; Ewald, p. 556 ff. 

6 Tac. Ann. xii. 54. 

71 Cor. ii. 4. 

8 See Kypke, II. p. 124; Bornemann and 
Rosenmiiller, Repert. II. p. 282. 

92 Tim. iv. 2. 

10 What Wieseler has further urged in 
favour of the year 60 in his most recent 


learned investigation (Beitr. 2. Würdig. d. 
Evang. p. 322 ff.) does not remove the 
chief objection that, according to Josephus, 
Poppaea, about the time (kata Tov Kapoor) 
that Festus succeeded, was no longer the 
mistress, but the wife of Nero. Especially 
when the discourse is of an empress, n yvvn is 
least of all to be lightly passed over ; on the 
contrary, ıt is to be presumed that the ex- 
pression is meant, and is to be understood, 
strictly. 

1 xxyv.'9. 

12 Herod. vi. 41. 
33. 1. 


See Krüger on Thuc. i. 


450 CHAP. XXIV.—NOTES. 


. . . quales locutiones non paucas habet Lucas, ubi non alios inducit 
loquentes, sed ipse loquitur, et quidem de rebus ad religionem non perti- 
nentibus.’’ The form ydpira, only here and in Jude 4 in the N. T., is also 
found in classical poets and prose writers, although less common than yapır. 
— dedeuévov] According to what was remarked on ver. 23, Paul had not 
hitherto been released from chains ; and therefore we have not to suppose 
that Felix on his departure changed the captivity of the apostle, which was 
previously free from chains,’ into the eustodia militaris allowable even in 
the case of Roman citizens, in which the prisoner was bound by a chain to 
the soldier who kept him. This period of two years in the life of the 
apostle, we may add, remains to us, as far as the Book of Acts goes, so 
completely unknown, that we are not ina position? to maintain that no 
letters of his from that interval could be in existence. — Of Porcius Festus, 
the better successor of Felix, little is known except his energetic measures 
against the sicarii.* He died in the following year, and was succeeded by 
Albinus, whose knavery was yet surpassed by that of his successor, Gessius 
Florus, 


Norres BY AMERICAN Eprror. 


(a) Tertullus began to aecuse. VY. 2. 


Lysias, the chief captain, had sent Paul under a strong military escort to 
Cxsarea to appear before the Roman governor Felix. Thus Paul returned to 
that city in a very different style from that in which he left it, a short time 
before. Then he was attended by a little caravan of humble disciples, now in 
the midst of a Roman body-guard, with all the pomp of martial display. Then, 
however, as a preacher bound, but only in spirit, to go to Jerusalem ; now, as a 
prisoner bound in chains, destined to along imprisonment. The officer in 
charge took Paul at once to the governor, and delivered the letter which had 
been intrusted to him by Lysias. Felix read the letter, inquired to what proy- 
ince the prisoner belonged, and intimated his intention of trying the case 
when his accusers arrived. 

The Jews, probably because ignorant of Roman law, engaged the services of 
a Roman barrister of eminent ability, persuasive eloquence, and probably of 
great reputation, to make the charges against the apostle. From the outline 
given of his speech, he was evidently a practised pleader, and a voluble, plau- 
sible orator. Augustine says : ““ Eloquence is the gift of God, but the eloquence 
of a bad man is like poison in a golden cup.’’ He commences with a fulsome 
and flattering compliment to Felix, which he certainly little deserved, since, 
though he suppressed some bands of brigands with much vigor and decision, 
he kept a number of sicarii in his employment, and inflamed the dissatisfac- 
tion and fanned a spirit of sedition among the Jews. He was both covetous 
and cruel, and was one of the worst governors ever placed over Judea. He is 
reported to have been more criminal than the very robbers whom he put to 


1 But see on ver. 23. 3 See Joseph. Antt. xx. 8.9 f. to xx. 9.1, 
2 With Ewald and Otto. Beil. ii. 14. 1. 


NOTES. 451 


death, “ipse tamen his omnibus erat nocentior.” Next Tertullus apologizes for 
intruding even for a brief space upon the time and attention of the governor, 
and proceeds to make his charges against Paul, which were threefold : First, he 
accuses him of sedilion; as being a pest in the community, a disturber of the 
peace, and one who excited factions among the Jews. The next count in the 
indictment was heresy ; as being a ringleader in the sect whom he contemptu- 
ously calls the Nazarenes—a term of reproach, here first used, which has been 
often applied to the followers of Christ. Jews and Mohammedans both still use 
it. This charge had at least the merit of truth, as Paul was unquestionably a 
standard-bearer among those thus stigmatized. The last accusation was, sac- 
rilege ; as going about to profane the temple—a serious charge, but utterly un- 
founded. Having thus made an orderly and formal indictment against the 
apostle of treason against Rome, schism against Moses, and profanity against 
the gods, the clever and crafty advocate insinuates that the Sanhedrim would 
have judged Paul righteously had Lysias not interposed, and further gets the 
elders to assent to all he had stated. The governor intimated to Paul that he 
might now reply to the charges laid against him. “ Nou ignoravit Paulus artem 
rhetorum movere laudendo.’’ He first states that he could proceed with his 
defence more cheerfully and hopefully because, for so long a period, his judge 
had been cognizant of affairs in Judea. He replies to each of the charges and 
refutes them in succession. He had not caused any disturbance of the public 
peace, or raised any opposition to the Roman law ; he had only been a few days 
in the country, and he challenged any one to prove that he had said or done 
anything contrary to the law; he had excited no tumult in the temple, in the 
synagogues, or in the city. As to the charge of schism, he frankly avowed that 
after the way they called the sect of the Nazarenes he worshipped the God of his 
fathers, the God of the Jews. As Lange expresses it, “ By these words Paul 
maintains that, along with his Christian faith, he was a true Jew ; for Chris- 
tianity is the fulfilment and truth of Judaism.”’ 

As to the charge of polluting the temple, it was utterly baseless, as after 
an absence of years he had gone thither, had purified himself, for the pur- 
pose of presenting offerings, and had been guilty of no act of. impropriety 
whatever ; and he closed by challenging any member of the Sanhedrim present 
to say whether, when on trial before that council, any such accusation had 
been laid against him, and stated further that the only disturbance arose 
among themselves concerning the doctrine of the resurrection, which the ma- 
jority of them believed in, as he did. The reply of the apostle was conclusive 
and triumphant, and he ought to have been acquitted at once, but Felix remand- 
ed him to jail for further examination. 


(Bt) According to our law, etc. V. 6. 


On the genuineness of this passage Alford encloses it in brackets and writes: 
‘“ The phenomena are common enough in the Acts of unaccountable insertions, 
But in this place it is the omission which is unaccountable, for no similarity 
of ending, no doctrinal reason can have led to it.” Hackett says: ‘‘ The pas- 
sage is of doubtful authority.’’ ‘‘ It is urged for the words that their insertion 
answers no apparent object, and that they may have been dropped accidental- 
ly.” Plumptre remarks : ‘‘ The word may have been either the interpolation of a 


452 CHAP. XXIV.—NOTES. 


scribe, or a later addition of the writer.” Gloag observes : ‘‘ The genuineness 
of the entire passage has been calledin question. The external evidence is de- 
cidedly against its reception. On the other hand the internal evidence is rather 
in favor of the words. Without them the speech of Tertullus is apparently de- 
fective, and awkward in point of construction.’’ Wordsworth considers the pas- 
sage genuine and Jacobson says : ‘‘ The clause is recognized by the Syriac and 
the Vulgate, and the report of the speech is exceedingly brief and meagre with- 
out it.’’ 


(ct) Felix trembled. V. 26. 


Felix by vile means had seduced the wife of Azizas, the daughter of Herod 
Agrippa, from her allegiance to her husband, and had married her. Probably 
at her request, as she could scarcely be entirely ignorant of the events con- 
nected with the disciples and their persecutions, Felix sent for Paul, to hear 
from him concerning his beliefs ; and right nobly did the dauntless apostle 
discharge his duty. Paul had been often summoned before Felix. Now Felix is 
arraigned before Paul. Andas the prisoner reasoned before the governor and his 
princess, both of them notoriously and consciously guilty, the cruel, rapacious, 
and blood-stained ruler was profoundly stirred and agitated. Looking back on 
his stained past, and constrained for a moment to peer into the future certain 
retribution, he trembled. And well he might, for testimony the most irrefragable 
from both Jewish and Pagan sources show ‘‘ how greedy, how savage, how 
treacherous, how unjust, how steeped with the blood of private and public 
massacre’? he had been during his government of Samaria and Palestine. 
Tacitus says that in “the practice of all kinds of lust, crime, and cruelty, he 
exercised the power of a king, with the temper of a slave.’’ He trembled, but 
he trifled with his awakened conscience and said,‘‘ Go.” Better far that a man’s 
conscience should never be awakened at all, than that it should be awoke with 
its reproofs, and be disobeyed. Dr. Taylor deduces the following lessons from 
the incident : The twofold power in conscience to sustain and condemn, as il- 
lustrated by Paul and Felix ; the danger of stifling conviction ; the hypocrisy 
of procrastination, the fettering influence of sin. 


“To-morrow and to-morrow, and to-morrow, 
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day 
To the last syllable of recorded time, 

And all our yesterdays have lighted fools 
The way to dusty death.” 


CRITICAL REMARKS. 453 


CHAPTER XXV. 


Ver, 2. 6 apyrepevs] of dpxıspeis is decidedly attested. Recommended by 
Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. The singular arose from xxiv. 1. — 
Ver. 4. eis Kavoup.] so Lachm. Tisch. Born., according to preponderating testi- 
mony. Elz. Scholz have &v Ka:capeca. An interpretation. — Ver. 5. rovrw] A B 
C E38, min. Arm. Vulg. Lucifer. have drorov. So Lachm. and Born. But how 
easily, with the indefiniteness of the expression ei rı Eoriv Ev K.7.A., Was üromov 
suggested as a gloss, perhaps from a recollection of Luke xxiii. 41! This then 
supplanted the superfluous rourw. Other codd. have rovtw aromov. And atorov 
is found variously inserted. — Ver. 6, od mAeiovs oxTd 7 dera] so Griesb. Lachm. 
Tisch. Scholz, Born. But Elz. has rAeiovs 7 déxa, in opposition to ABC 8, 
min. Copt. Arm. Vulg. As the oldest codd., in which the numbers are written 
as words, likewise all the oldest vss. (of which, however, several omit oi’, and 
several ob rAeiovs), have örro, it is very probable that in later witnesses the 
number written by the numeral sign 7 was absorbed by the following 7. 
Finally, the omission of od was suggested by &v rayeı, ver. 4, as it was thought 
that dıarpinpas de... . dena must be taken as a contrast to év rayer (he promised 
to depart speedily, yet he tarried, etc.),— Ver. 7. airıduara] Griesb. Scholz, 
Lachm. Tisch. read aitıouara, which is so decidedly attested that, notwith- 
standing that this form does not occur elsewhere, it must be adopted. — ¢épov- 
tes Kata Tob IlavAov] Lachm, Tisch. Born. read karadepovres, following A BC &, 
lot. 40, Vulg. Lucifer. The Recepta is one interpretation of this; another is 
émidép. ro I. in E. — Ver. 11. yap] ABCE 8, min. Copt. Slav. Chrys. Theo- 
phyl. 2, have oöv, which Griesb. has approved, and Lachm. Tisch. Born. have 
adopted. Rightly ; ei u2v obv adırö seemed entirely at variance with the pre- 
ceding oidév mdinnoa. — Ver. 15. dirnv] AB NS, min. Bas. have xatadixnv. Rec- 
ommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Born. An interpretation. — 
Ver. 16. After @v0pwrov Elz. Scholz have eis anwAsıav. It is wanting in pre- 
ponderating witnesses, and is an addition of the nature of a gloss. — Ver. 18, 
&r&pepov] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read é¢epov, according to decisive testimony. — 
After iz v. éyo A C* have movnpav (so Lachm.), and BE N** rovnpdv (so Born.). 
Two different exegetical additions. — Ver. 20. rovrwv] has decisive attestation. 
But Elz. Scholz have roörov, which (not to be taken with Grotius and others as 
the neuter) was occasioned by the preceding 6 IavAos and the following ei 
BovAorro. —Ver. 21. avarsın)oisto be adopted, with Lachm. Tisch. Born., accord- 
ing to preponderating testimony, instead of réu)w. The reference of the com- 
pound was overlooked. — Ver. 22. &$n, and afterwards o dé, are deleted by 
Lachm. Tisch. Born., according to A B N; andrightly. They were added by way 
of completion. — Ver. 25. karalaßöwevos] Lachm. and Born. read karsAaßöunv, 
following AB CE N**loti, Vulg. Copt. Syr., which witnesses also omit kai 
before aitod. A logical emendation. — Ver. 26. oxö, te yparpac] Lachm. 
Tisch. Born. read oyo, ti ypéw according to ABC, min. The Recepta is a 
mechanical repetition from the preceding. 


= 


454 ; CHAP. Xxv., 1-11. 


Ver. 1. Naturally it was the interest of Festus, both in his official and 
personal capacity, after he had entered upon his province as procurator of 
Judaea, i.e. after having arrived in it, soon to acquaint himself more fully 
with the famous sacred capital of the nation which he now governed. — 
&mıßaivew, with the dative.’—7H £rapxia ;” for the procurators were also 
called Zrapgxoı.? | 

Vv. 2, 3. ’Evedavıoav x.7.4.] See on xxiv, 1. — oi äpxıepeic] see the critical 
remarks, as in xxii. 80; consequently not merely the acting bigh priest,* 
who at that time was Jshmael, son of Phabi, and successor of Ananias.® 
— Kai ol mporoı Tv "Iovdaiwv] thus not merely the mpeoBitepo, xxiv. 1. The 
opposition now came forward in a larger spiritual and secular representation 
of the nation against the enemy of the nationul religion. It is true that 
most of these rporo: were without doubt Sanhedrists, and therefore also 
Festus names them directly @ potiori rpecBitepa ;° but this does not justify 
the assertion of Grotius, that Luke here uses rporo: as equivalent to rpeoß. 
So also de Wette and Ewald. Ver. 5 is opposed to this view. — aitotwe- 
vor yap K.T.A.| desiring for themselves favour against him." — orac x.t.2.| The 
design of mapexäA. air. — évédpav moivvreg x.7.2.] an accompanying definition 
to rapexddovy . . . "IepovoaAnu, giving a significant explanation of the pecu- 
liar nature of this proceeding : inasmuch as they thereby formed a snare, in 
order to put him to death, through assassins, by the way. 

Ver. 4. For the reasons of the decision, see ver. 16. — By rypeiofa . . . 
éxrropevecba, the reply of refusal: ‘‘ Paul remains at Caesarea,’’ is expressed 
indirectly indeed, but with imperative decidedness. Observe in this case 
the rypeicfa emphatically prefixed in contrast to wetaréuy., ver. 3. — Fic 
Kaoap.| In Caesarea, whither he was brought in custody.* — Notice the 
contrast between the Jewish baseness and the strict order of the Roman 
government. 

Ver. 5. The decidedly attested order of the words is: oi obv év ipiv dnow 
dbvatot.® of duvatot év iu. are: the holders of power among you, i.e. those who 
are invested with the requisite official power, for making a public com- 
plaint in the name of the Jewish nation. Thus the usual literal meaning 
of duvaréc is to be retained, and it is neither to be explained, with Erasmus, 
as idonei ; nor, with Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Homberg: quibus commodum 
est; nor, with Bengel: those who are strong for the journey; nor, with 
Er. Schmid and Wolf :!° quibus in promptu sunt accusandi capita. Certainly 
if of mporoı, ver. 2, were the same as oi rpeoBirepor, then of duvaroi év bpiv 
would be unsuitable, as those persons in power were just the Sanhedrists ; 
wherefore oi rparo: must include also other prominent persons. —ovyraraß.] 
having gone down with me." — ei rı éoriv] namely, an object of accusation. 


1 See Thue. vii. 70. 5; Diog. L. i. 19; Diod. BESTX PP) Seat, 164 

xvi. 66; Pind. Nem. iii, 19. 9 Lachmann, Tischendorf, Bornemann. 
2 xxiii. 34. See on similar intervening insertions of ¢yct, 
3 See Krebs in loc, Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. iii. 5. 13 ; Bornemann, 
4 As in xxiv. 1. ad loc.; Stallb. ad Plat. Rep. p. 472 D. 
5 See Joseph. Antt. xx. 8. 8, 11. 10 Comp. Castalio, de Dieu, and others. 
SoVer.15: 11 Thuc. vi. 30. 2; Diod. xii. 30; Wied. x. 


7 Com, ver. 15. 13 ; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 398. 


\ 


> 


PAUL’S TRIAL AND APPEAL. 455 


Vv. 6,7. Avatpiac . . . dexa] includes the whole brief stay of Festus at 
that time among the Jews at Jerusalem (év airoic), not merely the time 
that had elapsed since the rejection of that proposal. — repuéotyoav| stood 
round Paul, as is evident from the preceding repay. dé airov.' Grotius and 
Kuinoel incorrectly hold that it is to be referred to 7d Bjywa.— moAAü kal 
k.t.A.] aS in John xx, 30. —aitiduara {see the critical remarks), instead of 
airıquara, accusations, is not elsewhere preserved.” — katagépovrec (see the 
critical remarks), they brought against him.* 

Ver. 8. They were not in a condition to prove them, seeing that he stated 
For his vindication, that, ete.* — ovre x.7.4.| These were consequently the 
three principal points to which the roAAd Kai Bapéa airıöuara of the Jews 
referred,°’ to which they now added the political accusation, as formerly 
against Jesus. 

Ver. 9. Xäpıv xatabécha] see on xxiv. 27.—OéAerg . . . Em pod; 
Grotius correctly renders : visne a Synedrio judicari me praesente? For that 
Festus meant a xpivectlac by the Sanhedrim, is evident of itself from eic 'Iepoc. 
avaB. and éxet, — Er’ éuoi] coram me. Bengel aptly observes: hoc Festus 
speciose addit.—Paul must be asked the question, @éAecc, because he had 
already been delivered over to the higher Roman authority, and accord- 
ingly as a Roman citizen could not be compelled again to renounce the 
Roman tribunal.—If Festus had previously ° without ceremony refused the 
request of the Jews, which was at variance with the course of Roman law, 
he now shows, on the other hand, after they had conformed to the ordi- 
nary mode of procedure, that he was quite willing to please them. Cer- 
tainly he could not doubt beforehand that his @éAe¢ would be answered in 
the negative by Paul; yet by his question he made the Jews sensible at 
least that the frustration of their wish did not proceed from any indisposi- 
tion on his part. / 

Ver. 10. Paul gives a frank and firm refusal to that request, both posi- 
tively—éni tov Biju. Kaio. x.7.A.—and negatively—’Iovdaiovg oidév «.r.A., to 
the Jews I have committed no offence. —ixi r. Byu. Kaicapoc| for ‘‘ quae acta 
gestaque sunt a procuratore Caesaris, sic ab eo comprobantur, atque si a Cae- 
sare ipso gesta sint.’ —xdddwov] namely, than appears to follow from your 
question. Paul makes his judge feel that he ought not to have proposed 
that B&Asıc «.7.A. to him at all, as it could not but conflict with his own 
better conviction. 

Ver. 11. From his preceding declaration that he must be judged before 
the imperial tribunal, and not by Jews, Paul now reasons® that he accord- 
ingly by no means refuses to die, if, namely, he is in the wrong; but in 
the opposite case, etc. In other words: “ Accordingly, I submit myself 
to the penalty of the Roman law, if I am guilty; but, if,’’ ete. And, in 
order to be sure of the protection of Roman law, amidst the inclination of 


1 Comp. ver. 18. [of airianıs. 5 Comp. xxi. 28, xxiv. 5 f. 

2 Yet Eust. p. 1422, 21, has airiwocıs instead 6 Ver. 4. 

3 Gen. xxxvii. 2; Deut. xxii. 14. 7 Ulpian Z. 7. D. de offic. procuratoris. 

4 On arodoyetoGar with örı (more frequently 8 ody, as the correct reading instead of yap, 


with os), comp. Xen. Oec. xi. 22. see the critical remarks. 


456 CHAP. xxv., 12-18. 


Festus to please the Jews, he immediately adds the appeal to the Empe- 
ror (DY).— ei... adırö]) If T am at fault.‘ The idea of the word presup- 
poses the having done wrong,” therefore the added kai äfıov dav. rérp. Con- 
tains a more precise definition of adicé, and that according to the degree. 
—ob maparroduaı #.r.A.] non deprecor.*— ro arxodaveiv] ‘id ipsum agi, notat 
articulus.’’ 4*— ei d& obdév Earıv ov] but if there exists nothing of that, of which 
they, etc. dv is by attraction for robrev 4.° —divara] namely, according 
to the possibility conditioned by the subsisting legal relations. — avroic 
xapicacta to surrender me to them out of complaisance.° — Kaicapa éxixad.| I 
appeal to the Emperor." Certainly the revelation, xxiii. 11, contributed to 
Paul’s embracing this privilege of his citizenship.* ‘‘ Non vitae suae, quam 
ecclesiae consulens,’’ Augustine accordingly says, Hp. 2. 

Ver. 12. The conference of Festus with the council acting as his advi- 
sers, as may be inferred from the answer afterwards given, referred to the 
question whether the ZrixAnsıc of the Emperor was to be granted without 
more ado. For in cases of peculiar danger, or of manifest groundlessness 
of the appeal, it might be refused.* The consiliarii* of the provincial 
rulers were called also tdpedpor, assessores.1! — After éxixéxa., the elsewhere 
usual note of interrogation, which simply spoils the solemnity and force of 
the answer, is already condemned by Grotius.—Baumgarten thinks that, 
from the appeal to Caesar, which in his view will not have been pernicious 
to Paul, and from xxvii. 24, it may be inferred that the Acts of the Apos- 
tles is decidedly favourable to the supposition of a liberation of Paul from 
Too rash a conclusion. Neither the appeal 
To Rome he wished to go (appeal), and 


the Roman imprisonment. 
nor xxvii. 24 points beyond Rome. 
was to g0, xxvil. 24. 

Ver. 13. This Marcus Agrippa was the well-meaning, but too weak, 
Herod Agrippa ı1., son of the elder Agrippa, grandson of Aristobulus, and 
the great-grandson of Herod 1. Soon after the death of his father’? he 
received from Claudius, at whose court he was brought up," the principality 
of Chalcis, and instead of this, four years afterwards,“ from the same 
emperor, the former tetrarchy of Philip and Lysanias, along with the title 
of king ;!° and at a later period, from Nero, a further considerable increase 
of territory. He did not die till the third year of Trajan, being the last- 
reigning prince of the Herodian house.! — Bepvikn, also Beronice and Bere- 


1 See Krüger, Index. Xen. Anab. ; Jacobitz, 
ad Luc. Tim. 25, p. 25 f.; Heind. ad Plat. 


and others : Ebıevaı. 
8 See Grotius in loc.; Krebs, de provocat. 


Protag. § 4, p. 463 f. 

2 Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 5. 12. 

Comp. Joseph. Vit. 29; Herod. i. 24: 
Wuxnv Se maparreöuevov. Lys. adv. Sim. § 4: 
afın SE... et méev Adık®, undenuas ovyyvapuys 
Tuyxaveıv. 

* Bengel. Comp. Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 
226 (E. T. 262). 

5 Comp. xxiv. 8; Luke xxiii. 14. 

6 See on iii. 14. 

7 See examples from Plutarch of &rıkaA. in 
Wetstein; also Plut. @raech. 16; in Dem. 


Pauli ad Caes. in his Opusc. p. 143 ff. 

9 See Geib, /.c. p. 684 f. 

10 Suet. Z%d. 33. 

11 Suet Galba, 19. See generally, Perizonius, 
de Praetorio, p. 718; Ewald, p. 326. 

12 xil. 23. 

13 Joseph. Anét. xix. 9. 2, xx. 1.1. 

14 A.D. 53. 

15 Joseph. Antt. xx. 7. 1. 

16 See Ewald, p. 555 ff.; Gerlach in the Zu- 
ther. Zeitschr. 1869, p. 62 ff. 


FESTUS AND AGRIPPA. 457 


nice,’ was his sister, formerly the wife of her uncle Herod the prince of Chal- 
cis, after whose death she lived with her brother,—probably in an incestuous 
relation,’—a state of matters which was only for a short time interrupted 
by a second marriage, soon again dissolved, with the Cilician king Pole- 
mon.’ At a later period still she became mistress of the Emperors Ves- 
pasian and Titus.* — doracéuevoc] It was quite in keeping with the relation 
of a Roman vassal, that he should welcome the new procurator soon after 
his accession to office. 

Ver. 14. The following conversation between Festus and Agrippa most 
naturally appears not as a communication by an ear-witness,” but as drawn 
up by Luke himself as a free composition; for he had the materials for 
the purpose in his accurate information, received from Paul, as to the 
occurrence set forth in ver. 7 ff. — av&dero] he set forth, enarravit, Gal. ii. 2. 
His design in this was ° to learn the opinion of the king ; for Agrippa, as an 
Idumean, as belonging himself to Judaism,’ and especially as chief over- 
seer of the temple and of the election of high priest,* was accurately 
acquainted with the state of Jewish affairs. 

Vv. 15, 16. Airoiuevor x.r.A.]| asking for punishment against him. That 
dixnv® is so to be taken, according to its very frequent use by the classical 
writers,’ is shown by ver. 16.''— zpiv 7] refers to the conception of con- 
demnation contained in yapigecda:. As to the principle of Roman law here 
expressed, see Grotius.'” On the optative with zpiv after a negative clause, 
when the matter is reported ‘‘ wt in cogitatione posita,’’ see Klotz, ad Devar. 
p. 726. 

Vv. 17-20. After they had therefore come together here,® I made no delay, 
etc. !4 — Ver. 18. epi ou] belongs to cravévrec.!® — aitiav égepov (see the criti- 
cal remarks) : they brought no accusation. 'The classical expression would be 
air. éxipéperv.'° — ov, instead of Ereivav 4, itevdovv éyo] In the case of a 
man already so long imprisoned, and assailed with such ardent hostility, 
Festus very naturally supposed that there existed some peculiar capital 
crimes, chiefly, perhaps, of a political nature. It is true that political 
charges were also brought forward,’’ but ‘‘hinc iterum conjicere licet, imo 
aperte cognoscere, adeo futiles fuisse calumnias, ut in judicii rationem 
venire non debuerint, perinde ac si quis convicium temere jactet,’’ Calvin. 
— Ver. 19. repi tHe idiac dewowdarn.] concerning their own religion. Festus 
prudently uses this voz media, leaving it to Agrippa to take the word in a 


14.2. equivalent to Pepevikn, Sturz, Dial. 11 Comp. the passages with air. dcx. in Wet- 


Maced. p. 31. stein. 
2 Joseph. Antt. xx. 7. 3. 12 in Joc., and on xvi. 37. Likewise as to 
$3 Joseph. Antt. xx. 7. 5. the Greek law, see Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. 
4 See Gerlach, /.c. p. 160. 


5 Riehm, Kuinoel. 13 To Caesarea, just as in ver. 24. 
6 See ver. 26 f. 14See examples of avaBoAnv roveto Oar (comp. 
7 Comp. xxvi. 27; also Schoettg. Hor. p. avaBaddcoOat, xxiv. 22) in Wetstein. 


481. 15 Comp. ver. 7%. 


8 Joseph. Antt. xx. 1. 3. 

® Comp. 2 Thess. i. 9; Jude 7. 

10 See Reiske, Ind. Dem. p. 162 f.; Ast, Lex 
Plat. I. p. 538. 


16 Herod. i. 263; Thuc. vi. 76; Plat. Legg. 
ix. p. 856 E; and often in the orators, or 
éxayew Dem. 275, 4). 

17 Ver, 8. 


458 CHAP. XXV., 21-27. 


good sense, but reserving withal his own view, which was certainly the 
Roman one of the Judaica superstitio.! — Ipv] that he lives, namely, risen and 
not again dead. Moreover, the words xai zepi rıvog "Iyoov . . . Cyv bear 
quite the impress of the indifference and insignificance which Festus 
attached to this very point, inasmuch as, in regard to the reVvyxdroc, he 
does not even condescend to designate the mode of death, and, as regards 
the (jv, sees in it an empty pretence.?— Ver. 20. amopoipuevoc] but I, uncer- 
tain on my part. Quite in accordance with the circumstances of the case— 
for before the king Festus might not lay himself open to any imputation 
of partiality—Luke makes the procurator keep silence over the real motive 
of his proposal, ver. 9. — cic tiv rept tobtwr Ihr.) regarding the investigation 
to be held on account of these to me so strange matters.” Instead of eic rw 
«.T.A.,* Luke might have written only av k.r.A.,° or rH¢ K.7.2.° 

Ver. 21. After, however, Paul had appealed to be kept in ward” for the cog- 
nizance® of Augustus, etc. — npmdnvaı] 1s not equivalent to eic 7d rypmd.,” 
but it is the contents of the expressed appeal, namely, the legal demand 
which it contained. After this appeal had been in law validly made, no 

further proceedings might be taken by the authorities at their own instance 
‘against the appellant.!? — airév] is not to be written airdé», as there is no 
reflexive emphasis. — Zeßaoröc] Venerandus, the Lat. Augustus, the well- 
known title of the emperors since the time of Octavianus.!! — éw¢ ov ava- 
ru» (see the critical remarks !?) is direct address." 

Ver. 22. The narrative of Festus has excited the Jewish interest of the 
king, so that he also, on his part (k. auröc), wishes to hear the prisoner. — 
éBovadunr] quite like our: J wished,‘ namely, if it admitted of being done." 
Calvin erroneously infers from the imperfect that Agrippa had previously 
cherished a wish to hear Paul, but had hitherto refrained from expressing 
it, in order not to appear as if he had come for any other reason than to 
salute Festus. — aipiov axotcn . . . avtov] The wish of the king is very 
welcome to the procurator. Why? see ver. 26. 

Ver. 23. avracia, show, pomp, raparoury.'’—rd axpoarhpiov " is the audience- 
chamber appointed for the present occasion. That it was, as is assumed, 
just the usual judgment-hall, is at least not conveyed in the words. — 
oiy Te Tog K.T.A.| Té18 placed after civ, not after yAcdépy., because the civ 


1 Quinctil. iii. 8. Comp. on xvii. 22. 

2 ébackev, COMP. XXIV. 9. [vi. 16. 2. 

3 ¢éyrnots, in the judicial sense, as in Pol. 

4 Comp. Soph. Trach. 1233. 

5As A H actually read. Heind. ad Plat. 
Crat. p. 409 C. 

6 Stallb. ad Plat. Rep. p. 557 D. 

7 Ver. 4. 

8 Judicial decision, Wisd. iii. 18, and often 
in the classical writers. 

9 Grotius, Wolf, Heinrichs, and others. 

10 See Wetstein on ver. 11. 

11 See generally, Fincke, de appellationib. 
Caesarum honorif. et adulator. usque ad Ha- 
drian., Regiom. 1867. avros yevönevos apyn 
oeßaopod Kat Tots ereıra, Philo, Leg. ad Ca- 


tum p. 1012. Vell. Paterc. ii. 91; Dio Cass, 
liii. 16; Herodian, ii. 10. 19, iii. 13. 7; Strabo, 
Vii. p. 291. 

12 On avamepreıv, to send up, of the trans- 
port of prisoners to Rome, comp. Polyb. 1. 7. 
12, xxix. 11.9; Lucian, 7oxr. 17; and Jacoh 
inloc. See also on Luke xxiii. 7. 

13 Comp. on xxiii. 12. 

14 Germ. : ich wollte. 

15 Comp. Rom. ix. 3; Gal. iv. 20. See Wi- 
ner, p. 265 f. (E. T. 353). 

16 1 Macc. ix. 37, ambitio (Nep. x. 2. 2). See 
Polyb. xv. 25. 5, Xvi. 21. 1, xxxii. 12. 6 ; Diog. 
L. iv. 53; Jacobs, ad Del. epigr. p. 152; and 
Wetstein. 

17 Plut. Moral. p. 45 F, 937 D. Cat. 22. 


AUL AND AGRIPPA, 459 


is again mentally supplied before avdpaoı.! By roic yiAcdpyouc, there were 
Jive cohorts, and therefore five tribunes in Caesarea—and by üvdpaoı . . . 
moAewe are meant the principal military and the prominent civil personages 
of the city. — Instead of roic kar’ &$oxnv ovcı, a classical writer would say 
roig E£öyoıg OF ELOYwWTATOLC.” 

Vv. 24, 25. Oewpeite| Indicative. — ray 76 72700¢] appears to conflict with 
vv. 2 and 15, and is at all events an exaggeration. But how natural is it 
to suppose that the persons there named were accompanied by an impetuous 
crowd! Hence also im:Podrtec. On évérvydv po, they have approached me, 
in a hostile spirit towards him.” On évddde, comp. xxv. 17. —xai aurov dé 
tovtov| and, on the other hand,* this person himself, itemque ipse ille. 

Vv. 26, 27. "Acoaréc rı] something trustworthy, whereby the emperor, 6 
kbpioc, Dominus, the appellation declined by Augustus and Tiberius, but ac- 
cepted by their successors, * may inform himself certainly concerning the state 
of matters. Such a fixing of the real airia had not been possible for the pro- 
curator, who had to draw up the literae dimissoriae, so long as the proceed- 
ings were constantly disturbed and confused by intentional fabrications 
of the Jews. — ävaxpio.] A preliminary examination, ‘‘judicis edocendi 
causa.”°— In oyö rı ypdww (see the critical remarks) ypdyo is the fu- 
ture :” what I am to write. — @)0yov] unreasonable, absurd.” Without eivar.” 
— räc kar’ abrov airiac] This was just the aogaréc, which was still wanting 
to the procurator. Without having made himself clear as to the contents 
of the charges brought against Paul, he would have been obliged frankly 
to report to the emperor that he was in ignorance of them. Olshausen, 
however, is hasty in holding that, with the placing of the apostle before 
Agrippa the prediction of the Lord!” wasnow for the first timefulfilled. We 
know far too little of the previous history of the other apostles to take 
this ground. Perhaps the elder James and Peter had already stood before 
Herod." But Paul stood here for the first time before a king, who, how- 
ever, is by no means to be considered as the representative of the power of 
the heathen world, as Baumgarten supposes, as Agrippa was himself a Jew,” 
ruled over the Jews, was by Paul addressed as a Jew," and was, in fact, even 
regarded as representative of the Jews." 





1 See Schoemann, ad Isae. p. 325 f. ; Stallb. 7 See on Phil. i. 22. 

ad Plat. Crit. p. 43 B. 8 Thuc. vi. 85. 1, Plat. @org. p. 519 E, Apol. 
2 On the periphrastic kara, see Winer, 396 p.18C. 

(E. T. 528). 9 See Sauppe, and Kühner ad Xen. Mem. 
3 Comp. 1 Macc. viii. 32, x. 61; 2Macc. iv. i.1.5. 

36. [51. 10 Matt. x. 18; Mark xiii. 9. 
4xai... S€as in xxii. 29; see on John vi. 11 Agrippa I., xii. 2, 3 f. 
5 See Wolf and Wetstein, also Dougt. Anal. 12 See on ver. 14. 

p. 96; Fincke, 2.c. 13 xxvi. 3, 27. 
6 Grotius. See also Heind. ad Plat. Phaedr. 14 See map’ twiy xxvi. 8. 


p. 277 E.; Hermann, Staatsalterth. § 141.1. 


460 CHAP. XXV.—NOTES. 


Notes BY AMERICAN EDITOR. 


(p‘) Tappeal to Cesar. V.11. 


For two years the mercenary and unprincipled Felix kept Paul in prison at 
Cxsarea. It has been supposed by some that during this period, Luke, hav- 
ing free access to Paul, wrote his gospel, and perhaps a part of the Acts under 
his direction. On account of a formal impeachment by the Jews, Felix was re- 
called to Rome to answer their accusations, and Festus, a man of a very differ- 
ent character, was appointed as his successor. He seems to have been an up- 
right and honorable man, who entered upon the duties of his office with energy, 
activity, and decision. Owing to the excited state of mind among the Jews at 
the time, and their embittered feelings against Paul, his case was at once 
brought before Festus. The new governor without delay visited Jerusalem, 
the ancient capital of the province, with a view to become acquainted with the 
characteristics of the people whom he had been appointed to govern. 

When there, the chief men among the Jews came to him, and asked, as a 
special favor, that he would give judgment against Paul at once, or order him 
to be sent to Jerusalem for trial. This was done with the sinister design of as- 
sassinating him while on the way. The answer of Festus was dignified and 
worthy of the office he held : ‘‘ Let his accusers come to Cesarea, and he shall 
be tried there.’ As soon as Festus returned Paul is brought again before the 
court. The Jews passionately and clamorously reiterate their former charges 
of treason, heresy, and sacrilege, which the apostle meets with a calm and em- 
phatic denial. With the view of putting an end to a scene so disorderly and 
offensive to his sense of Roman decorum, Festus asks Paul whether he was 
willing to transfer the question from Roman back to Jewish jurisdiction. 
Paul’s reply is prompt and decided, and reveals the dauntless and heroic spirit 
of the man. “Iam either guilty or not ; if guilty, I fear not the sentence of 
death from the tribunal at which I now stand ; but if I am innocent, as a Ro- 
man citizen, no man can deliver me into the hands of the Jews ; I appeal to 
Cesar.’ The right of appeal from a subordinate court to the emperor was 
one of the privileges of citizenship ; and no unnecessary impediment could be 
interposed against such appeal. Festus therefore, having consulted his coun- 
sellors, granted the appeal and said, “ Unto Cesar thou shalt go” —“ Casarem 
appellasti ; ad Caesarem ibis.” So Paul was again remanded to prison until ar- 
rangements could be made to forward him to Rome. Particular importance 
was attached to the right of appeal from the judgments of provincial magis- 
trates. The magic power of this one word appello is described as similar to 
that of the talismanic phrase, Civis Romanus sum. Indeed the two things coin- 
cided. (Alexander.) 


(z') Unto my lord. V. 26. 


‘O xvpioc—dominus—lord. Gloag says: “In the use of this title we have 
an instance of the extreme accuracy of the historian of the Acts.” This title 
was declined by the first two emperors, Augustus and Tiberias. Caligula ac- 
cepted it, but it was not a recognized title of any emperor before Domitian. Of 


NOTES. 461 


Augustus, Tertullian writes: “ Augustus imperii formator ne dominum quidem 
dici se volebat’’— Augustus, the founder of the empire, did not wish any one 
to call him lord. And Suetonius writes : “ Dominum se appellari, ne a liberis 
quidem, aut nepotibus, vel serio vel joco, passus est” —He suffered not him- 
self to be addressed as lord, even by his own children or grandchildren, 
whether in jest or earnest. 

Antoninus Pius was the first who put this title on hiscoins. Polycarp, who 
was acontemporary of some of the apostles, and who suffered martyrdom at an 
advanced age, refused to utter it. 


462 CRITICAL REMARKS, 


CHAPTER XXVI. 


Ver. 1. ixép] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read repi, upon decisive evidence. — 
Ver. 3. After deouaı Elz. Scholz have oov, which is deleted by Lachm. Tisch. 
Born., according to AB E 8, min. Aeth. Syr. p. Arm, Vulg. A supplementary 
addition. — Ver. 6, eis] Elz. Scholz have mpés. eis has A BE 8, min. in its 
favour; is recommended by Griesb., and adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. ; 
pos is explanatory, in accordance with xiii. 32. — After rar. ABC E 8, min. 
Chrys. Theophyl. and many vss. have judv. Adopted by Griesb. Scholz, 
Lachm., and in view of the considerable preponderance of testimony, rightly. 
The unnecessary pronoun was easily passed over. — Ver. 7. The critically 
established order of the words is: éyxaAodua d70 lovdaiwy (not vr6 tav ’Iovd., 
as Elz. has) BaoiAed. So Lachm. Born. Tisch. ’Ayoirra, which Elz. and Scholz 
have after GaovAci, is an addition opposed to greatly preponderant testimony, 
— Ver. 10. dvAaxais] decisive witnesses have év gvd. ; so Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. 
Tisch. Born. — Ver, 12. &v 0i5 kai] kai is wanting in A BC EJ x, min. and sev- 
eral vss. Deleted by Lachm. and Born. ; and on that preponderating testi- 
mony with the more right, as the frequent «ai after the relative was easily 
added mechanically. — 77s mapa röv] Lachm. and Born. have merely rtév, ac- 
cording to A. E J, min. vss. (B 8% omit only rapa). But 775 might be just as 
easily left out after the syllable ns, as mapa might be overlooked as super- 
fluous. If only röv stood originally, there was no reason why it should be 
completed from ver. 10. Therefore the Recepta is to be retained. — Ver. 14. 
Aahoicav xpdoue k. A€yovoav] Lachm. and Born. read Aeyovoav mpds ue, following 
AB CJ &, min. vss., to which also E, min., having gwv7s Aeyotons mpdS pe, 
are to be added. But the comparison of ix. 4, xxii. 7, occasioned the abbrevi- 
ation. — Ver, 15. 6 dé] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read 6 62 KupoS, according to very 
considerable testimony. The Recepta is from ix. 5 (see the critical re- 
marks thereon). — Ver. 16. eides] B C* (?) 137, Arm. Syr. p. Ambr. Aug. have 
eldés we. More precise definition, although defended by Buttmann in the Stud. 
u. Krit. 1860, p. 360. — Ver. 17. Instead of 2y6, Elz. Scholz have viv, against 
decisive testimony. — Ver, 20. After mpörcv Lachm. Born. Tisch. have re as in 
AB 8. Inserted for closer connection with «ai 'Iepoo.. Comp. the following 
Te... kai.— eS müocav] eis is wanting in AB S, and is deleted by Lachm., 
but is indispensable, and might be easily enough passed over after the syllable 
os, — Ver. 21. The article is wanting before ’Iovdaio. in BG N*, which Butt- 
mann approves: it was easily overlooked on account of the similarity of the 
following syllable, but would hardly be added, comp. vv. 2, 3, 7.— Ver. 22. 
mapa] a7é has the stronger attestation (Lachm. Tisch. Born.). — paptupotuevos] 
ABGH 8, min. Chrys. Theophyl. have waprvpöuevos. Approved by Griesb., 
adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. A correction. See the exegetical remarks. — 
Ver. 25. 6 dé] Lachm. and Born. read 6 68 IaiAos, which, indeed, has important 
attestation, but has the suspicion of having arisen from the very usual practice 
of writing the name on the margin. — Ver. 28. é¢7] is to be deleted, with Lachm. 


PAUL’S ADDRESS. 463 


Tisch., according to important witnesses (including 8). — yev£cdaı] Lachm. 
and Born. read rovjoaı, after AB 8, loti. three min. Copt. Syr. p. (on the mar- 
gin). This variation is connected with the reading IIEIOHI (instead of reideıs), 
but which is found onlyin A, and along with meıjoa: is of the nature of a gloss.! 
— Ver. 29. m01%6]J Lachm. Tisch. Born. read weydAw, after AB NS, min. Syr. 
utr. Copt. Arm. Vulg. Rightly ; 70% involuntarily intruded itself as a con- 
trast of dAiyw. —Ver. 30. avéorn te] Elz. has kai radra eimövros abtod avéotn, 
against AB N, min. Syr. Erp. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. An amplification. 


Vv. 1-3. 'Erıro£rerai cor] it is, herewith, permitted to thee to speak for thy- 
self, i.e. to defend thyself.? — éxreivac tyv xeipa] after stretching forth his 
hand, is not equivalent to the karaosioac tH xeıpt, xü. 17, xili. 16, in opposi- 
tion to Er. Schmid and Hammond, because this latter had for its object the 
ovyav of the hearers ;* but it conveys a trait descriptive of the solemnity of 
this moment: Paul comes forward in the attitude of an orator, with all the 
ingenuousness and candour of a good conscience, although the chain hung on 
his hands.* Comp. in contrast to the simple gesture of Paul, the artificially 
rhetorical one in Apuleius :° ‘‘ Porrigit dextram et ad instar oratorum con- 
format articulum, duobusque infimis conclusis digitis ceteros eminentes 
porrigit."” According to Lange’s fancy, it is an intimation that ‘‘he 
stretched out his hand at length for once to an intelligent judge.’’ — How true 
and dignified is also here ° the conciliatory exordium, with which Paul com- 
mences his speech ! — id 'Iovdaiwy] by Jews, generally, not: by the Jews, 
comp. xxv. 10. In regard to Jewish accusations, Paul esteemed himself 
fortunate that he was to defend himself before Agrippa, as the latter was 
best informed about Jewish customs and controversies. — Ver. 3. wärıora 
yvbornv bvta ce] as thou art most, more than all other authorities, cognizant. 
The speech, continuing by a participial construction, is joined on in an ab- 
normal case, as if an accusative expression had been previously used.” The 
view of Bornemann is very harsh, as dıö déoua entirely closes the previous 
construction, and commences a new sentence of the speech : that Paul has 
put the accusative, because he had it in view to continue subsequently with 
aité . . . akovoai nov, but omitted to do so on account of nüvw ... 
Inrnuarov. —Kata ‘Iovd.| among Jews throughout.® 

Vv. 4, 5. Mé» ody] introduces, in connection with the preceding exor- 
dium, the commencement now of the defence itself.” — Bioow] manner of 
life.° Not preserved in Greek writers. — r7v am’ apxäc . - » ‘Iepoo.] a sig- 
nificant epexegesis of ryv &x vedryroc, for the establishment of the following 
ioacı K.T.A. — mpoywookovtec . . . Papicaioc] my manner of life... know 
all Jews, since they knew me from the outset, since the first time of my be- 


® Comp. xxiv. 10. 

7 Such as mpos ce . .. amodoyerodar, Plat. 
Apol. p. 24B. Less simply Buttmann, newt. 
Gr. p. 272 (EB. T. 317). See on Eph. i. 18, and 


1 Expressing the meaning: thow believest to 
make me a Christian. Nevertheless Lach- 
mann, Praef. p. x. considers the reading of A 
as correct. (7. 16. 


2 Comp. Soph, Aj. 151, HZ. 545; Xen. Hist. i. 
Sl. wel fi 

2 Vier.29) 

5 Metamorph. ii. p. 54. 


Stallb. ad. Plat. Rep. p. 386 B. 
8 See Winer, p. 374 (E. T. 499). 
% See Bäumlein, Partik. p. 181. 
10 Ecclus. Praef. 1, Symm. Ps. xxxviü. 6. 


464 CHAP. XXVI., 6-10. 


coming known—namely, that I, according to the strictest’ sect of our religion 
(Opnoxsiac), have lived as Pharisee. This ®apıoaiog, calling that axpıp. aipeouw 
by its name, stands with great emphasis at the close. Notice generally the 
intentional definiteness with which Paul here describes all the circumstances 
of the case, to which belongs also the emphatic repetition of r7u.” — In rpo- 
ywook., mpo, before, contains the same conception, which is afterwards still 
more definitely denoted by dvwfev. They knew Paul earlier than merely 
since the present encounter, and that indeed ävudev, from the beginning,* 
which therefore, as it refers to the knowing and not to &£yoa, may not be 
explained : from my ancestors.* — tüv 0éAwor uaprvpeiv] if they do not conceal 
or deny, but are willing to testify it. ‘‘Nolebat autem, quia persentis- 
cebant, in conversione Pauli, etiam respectu vitae ante actae, eflicacissimum 
esse argumentum pro veritate fidci Christianae,’’ Bengel.° 

Vv. 6, 7. As I was known from of old by every one as a disciple of the 
strictest orthodoxy, so it is also now far from being anything heterodox, on 
account of which I stand accused (éoryKa xpivduevoc),—it is the universal, 
ardently-cherished, national hope, directed to the promise issued by God 
to our fathers. — ir’ &iridı] on account of hope toward the promise, etc. 
That Paul means the hope of the Messianic kingdom to be erected, the hope of 
the whole eternal «Aypovouia,® not merely the special hope of the resurrec- 
tion of the dead,’ the following more precise description proves, in which 
the universal and unanimous solicitude of the nation is depicted. He had 
preached of this hope, that the risen Jesus would realize it,* and this was 
the reason of his persecution.*® — ei¢ tob¢ rarzépac ju@v] issued to our Fathers. 
On the order of the words, the participle after the substantive, see Kühner.'® 
— eic qv refers to the éxayyeAia. — 7d dwderapviov nudav] our twelve-tribe-stock, & 
theocratically honourable designation of the nation as a whole.!! The word 
is also found in the Protevang. Jacobi, 1: 75 dwderaoknrrpov tov ’Iopani.” To 
understand the expression historically, it need only be remarked, that even 
after the exile the collective body of the people actually consisted of the 
twelve tribes ; in which view the circumstance, that ten tribes did not re- 
turn from the exile, did not alter anything in the objective relation, and 
could not destroy the consciousness, deeply interwoven and vividly bound 
up by history and prophecy with the whole national character, that every 
Jew, wherever he was, belonged to the great unity of the dwderaovAov, —to 
say nothing of the fact that all the members of the ten tribes did not go 
into exile, and of the exiled all did not jointly and severally remain in 
exile. The question, therefore, as to the later fate of the ten tribes * does 
not belong to this place. —év éxreveia x.7.2.] with constancy attending to the 


SS 9 See also xxviii. 20. 


2 See Bornemann in loc. 10 Ad Xen. Anab. v. 3. 4. 

3 Luke i. 3. 11 Comp. Jas. i. 1. 

4 Beza. 12 See Thilo in loc., p. 166 f. ; Clem. 1 Cor, 
5 Comp. xxii. 19 f. 55, comp. chap. 31, p. 76. 

6 Heb. ix. 15. 13 Quite analogous is dexabvAos, Herod. v. 
7 Grotius. 66 ; comp. rerpabvAos in the same place. 


8 Comp. xiii. 32 f. 14 See especially Baumgarten. 


THE RESURRECTION. 465 


worship of God, as well by the VDA, saerifieium juge,!' as by prayer and 
every kind of adoration. Comp. on Luke ii. 37, where also, in order at 
once to give prominence to the earnestness of the constant worship, vurra 
precedes. — karavrjoaı] to arrive, as if at a goal, which is the contents of the 
promise.” The conception Aaußaveı ryv éxayyed.2 is analogous. The reali- 
zation of the Messianic promise is also here represented as attaching itself 
{o the pious preparation of the nation.*— iro ’Iovdaiov] by Jews! placed 
at the end, brings into emphatic prominence the contrast. The absurdity 
and wickedness of being impeached by Jews concerning the hope of the 
Messianic kingdom were to be made thoroughly palpable. 

Ver. 8. The circumstance that Paul made the resurrection of Jesus the 
foundation of his preaching of the Messianic kingdom, had specially pro- 
voked the hatred of the Jews. This resurrection they would not recog- 
nise,” and therefore he continues—in his impassioned address breaking 
away from what had gone before, and in the person of the Jewish king 
addressing the Jews themselves as if present (rap’ iuiv)—with the bold 
inquiry: Why is it esteemed as incredible with you? ete. Beza and others, 
also de Wette and Lange, place after ri a note of interrogation: How? Is 
it incredible? etc. But it tells decisively against this view that the mere 
ri is not so used ; ri yap, ri otv, or ri dé would be employed. — ei 6 Ocd¢ vexp. 
éyeiper| if God, as He has done in the instance of Jesus, raises the dead.® ei 
is neither equivalent to örı,’ nor is it the problematic whether ;* the more 
especially as the matter under discussion is not that of doubt or uncer- 
tainty on the part of the Jews, but that of their definite unbelief, which is 
absurd. 

Vy. 9, 10. In consequence of this unbelief (uév oöv), I myself was once a 
decided opponent of the name of Jesus.— édofa £uavro] mihi ipsi videbar. 
See examples in Wetstein. The view of Erasmus, Calovius, de Dieu, and 
Vater, who connect äuavro with deiv, is to be rejected; for deiv with the 
dative, although not without example in classical writers,’ is foreign to 
the N. T.  éguav7 has the emphasis of his own personal opinion : I had the 
self-delusion, that I ought to exert myself. ‘‘ Tanta vis errantis conscien- 
tiae,’’ Bengel. — rpöc 76 övoua] in reference to the name, namely, in order to 
suppress the confession and invocation of it. Observe how Paul uses ’Iyoov 
tov Naswp. according to his standpoint as Saul. —6]) which 707%a évavtia 
mpatat I also actually did.'° This is then more particularly set forth by kat 
(and indeed) roddovc «.7.2. Mark the difference between rpaoosıv and 
roıeiv.‘ —tov ayiwv| spoken from the Christian standpoint of the apostle, 
with grief. The éyé also has painful emphasis — avarp. re ait. xathveyKa 
yjoov| and when they were put to death, when people were on the point of 
executing them, J have given vote thereto, caleulum adjeci, i.e. I have as- 








1 See Ewald, Alterth. p.171. 7 Luther, Beza, Grotius, and others. 

2 Comp. on Phil. iii. 7. 8 De Wette and others. 

3711.23; Gal: iil: 14; Heb. ix. 15, xi. 18, ® Xen. Dem. iii. 3. 10, Anab.iii. 4. 35, Oecon. 
4 Comp. iii. 20 f. vii. 20; see Kühner, § 551, note 5: Schoem. 
5 xxv. 19. 10 Comp. Gal. ii. 10. [ad Is. p. 380. 


® Comp. Vulgate, Erasmus, and others. 11 See on John iii. 20. 


466 CHAP, XXVE, 20. 


sented, ovveudöknoa, xxii. 20. The plural avap. air. is not, with Grotius, 
Kuinoel, and others, to be referred merely to Stephen, but also to other 
unknown martyrs, who met their death in the persecution which began 
with the killing of Stephen." Elsner and Kypke make the genitive de- 
pendent on karjveyka, and in that case take xara- in a hostile reference.? 
Harsh, and without precedent in linguistic usage ; dvamp. air. is the geni- 
tive absolute, and xarzv. is conceived with a local reference, according to 
the original conception of the w7eoc, the voting-stone, which the voter de- 
posits in the urn. Classical authors make use of the simple gépecv yjoov,* 
also of diagépery, OT éxidép., OF avagép., Or éxoép. p. But to karapepeıv in our 
passage corresponds the classical rıdevar y7pov.* 

Vv. 11-13. Kara rdécac r. ovvay.| throughout all the synagogues in Jeru- 
salem, going from one to another and searching out the Christians in ail.® 
—rimwpav avtoig| taking vengeance on them, dragging them to punishment.® 
The middle is more usual. — BAacedyueiv] namely, tov ’Incoov, which is obvi- 
ous of itself, as the object of the specific reverence of Christians.” Whether 
and how far this yvayral. BAacd. was actually successful, cannot be deter- 
mined. — &oc kal eic Tac E£o möreıc] till even unto the extraneous cities, outside 
of Palestine. By this remark the following narrative has the way signifi- 
cantly prepared for it. — év oic] in which affairs of persecution.* — per’ &£ovo. 
x. éxitp.| with power and plenary authority.” ‘* Paulus erat commissarius,”’ 
Bengel. — jjuépac uécac] At noon, ueonußpiac,!® genitive of the definition of 
time.’ On the non-classical Greek expression „Eon juépa, see Lobeck."? — 
kara tHv odöv] along the way. — ixéip 7. Aaump. T. mAtov] surpassing the bright- 
ness of the sun. 

Vv. 14, 15. See on ix. 4 ff.; comp. xxii. 7 f. —7q 'Eßp. dat.) It was 
natural that the exalted Christ should make no other language than the 
native tongue of the person to be converted the medium of his verbal reve- 
lation. Moreover, these words confirm the probability that Paul now spoke 
not, as at xxi. 40, in Hebrew, but in Greek. — oxAnpov co Tpöc Kévtpa Aakri- 
Cew| hard for thee, to kick against goads! i.e. it is for thee a difficult under- 
taking, surpassing thy strength, and not to be accomplished by thee," that 
thou, as my persecutor, shouldest contend against my will. ‘H dé tpoxy ard 
Tav Body’ TOV yap ol Arakrot KaTa THY yewpyiav kevrpıSöuevor imo GpovvToG, AaKTi- 
Govar TO KévTpov Kat uaAAov minrtrovraı.!® 

Vv. 16-18. *AAAa] ‘‘ Prostravit Christus Paulum, ut eum humiliaret ; 
nunc eum erigit ac jubet bono esse animo,’’ Calvin. — eic rovro yap] eic TovTo 


1 Comp. viii. 1, ix. 1. 10 Comp. xxii. 6. 

2 Comp. karaymdigeır. (quently. 11 Bernhardy, p. 145. 

3 Plat. Legg. vi. p. 766 B, p. 767 D, and fre- 12 Ad. Phryn. p. 55 f. 

4Plat. Tim. p.51 D; Eur. Or. %54; Dem. 13 xxv, 8, viii. 36. 
362. 6, and frequently. 14 See Winer, p. 376 (E. T. 502). 

5 Comp. xxii. 19. 15 Compare Gamaliel’s saying, v. 39. 

6 Soph. O. R. 107. 140; Polyb. ii. 56. 15. 16 Schol. ad Pind. Pyth. ii. 173. Comp, 
Comp. xxii. 5, and Wetstein in loc. Aesch. Agam. 1540 (1624): mpos kevrpa un 

7 Jas. ii. 7; comp. Plin. Zp. x. 97; Suicer, Aarrıde. See other examples from Greek and 
Thes. 1. p. 657. Roman writers in Grotius and Wetstein ; also 

8 Comp. xxiv. 18. Blomfield, ad Aesch. Prom. 331; Elmsl. ad 


* Polyb. iii. 15. 7; 2 Macc. xiii. 14. Eur. Bacch. 794. 


PAUL’S ACCOUNT OF HIS CONVERSION. 467 


points emphatically to what follows, zpoyerpicacPar x.7.2., and yap assigns 
the reason for what precedes, avaormdı K.r.A.. — tpoyxerp.| in order to appoint 
thee.' He was, indeed, the oxevog éxAoyic, ix. 15. — dv re debjcouai oo] av is 
to be resolved into rovrwv a; but doFjooua is not, with Luther, Bengel, and 
others, including Bornemann, to be taken as causative, videre faciam, but 
purely passive, J shall be seen. The 4 contained in dv is equivalent to dv 4, 
on account of which.” Consequently : and of those things, on account of which 
I shall appear to thee, tibi videbor.* — £Satpovuevög ce] is an accompanying defi- 
nition to doHjcouai cur: rescuing thee, as thy deliverer, from the people, i.e. 
kat’ &£oyjv, the Jewish nation, and from the Gentiles, from their hostile 
power.‘ Calvin appropriately says: ‘‘ Hic armatur contra omnes metus, 
qui eum manebant, et simul praeparatur ad crucis tolerantiam.’’ — cic otc] 
is not, with Calvin, Grotius, and others, to be referred merely to röv &dvav, 
but, with Beza, Bengel, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, de Wette, to tov ?aov k. r. &Hvov 
together, which is required by the significant bearing of vv. 19, 20. — azoc- 
véA2w| not future, but strictly present. — dvoitar dofaAuov¢e aur@ov) contains 
the aim of the mission. And this opening of their eyes, i.e. the susceptibility 
for the knowledge of divine truth,’ which was to be brought to them by 
the preaching of the gospel,® was to have the design: tov éxiotpépa, that 
they may turn themselves ; on account of ver. 20, less admissible is the ren- 
dering of Beza and Bengel : ut convertas, ad oxörovc ei¢ pac, from darkness to 
light, i.e. from a condition, in which they are destitute of saving truth, and 
involved in ignorance and sin, to the opposite element, kai (arö) tij¢ ESovoiag 
tov Latava «.7.A. The two more precise definitions of Zriorpäypa: apply to 
both, to the Jews and Gentiles ; but the latter has respect in its predomi- 
nant reference to the Gentiles, who are äfeoı év tO köouw,' under the power 
of Satan, the dpyev tov Koouov tobtov, Eph. ji. 2.— rov Aaßeiv aitodve ageoww 
. . . e¢ iué] This now contains the aim of tov ämiorp£ipa: «.7.A., and so the 
ultimate aim of avoifaı 6¢bahuoi¢ aitov.— KAjpov Ev Toic Wytaou.] See on xx. 82. 
— rioreı TH eig Zu] belongs to Aaßeiv. Faith on Christ, as the subjective 
condition (causa apprehendens) of the forgiveness of sins and the attainment 
of the Messianic salvation, is with great emphasis placed at the close ; the 
Form also of the expression has weight. 

Vv. 19,° 20. "Ofev] ZHence,* namely, because such a glorious ministry has 
been promised to me. — ov« &yevöunv] i.e. non praestiti me.'!° — Observe the 
address to the king, as at ver. 13 in the narrative of the emergence of the 
Christophany, so here immediately after its close ; in both places, for the 
purpose of specially exciting the royal interest. — 7 oipaviy örraoia] the 
heavenly vision, because it came oipavéfer."! — eic macav re rmv yop. 7. "Tovd.] 


1 See on iii. 20, xxii. 14. Gal. i. 4, LXX. and Apocr. ; Dem, 256. 2, al.) 
2 See Stallb. ad Plat. Symp. p. 174 A; El- 5 The opposite : xxviii. 27; Rom. xi. 8. 

lendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 374; especially Soph. 6 Ver. 23. 

Oed. T. 788, where Sv uev ixounv is likewise 7 Eph. ii. 12. 

to be resolved into rovrwv du’ & ikounv. 8 Ver. 19 proves the resistibility of the in- 
3 Comp. Winer, p. 246 (E. T. 329), who, how- _ fluences of grace. 

ever, without reason, contradicts himself, p. 9 Matt. xiv. 7. 

135 (E. T. 178). 10 See Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 7. 4. 


4 On e£aıp., comp. Vii. 10, xii. 11, xxiii. 27; 11 Ver. 13. 


468 CHAP, XXVI., 21-24. 


The statement is threefold: I preached, (1) to them in Damascus; (2) to 
the city Jerusalem, "IepoooAuuorc, simple dative, no longer de on év, 
and unto all the land of Judaea ;' (8) to the Gentile.” Thus Paul indicates ' 
his whole ministry from his conversion till now.* Consequently there is here 
no contradiction with Gai. i, 22.4 It was also the interest of the apostle, 
persecuted by the Jews, to put his working for the Jews into the fore- 
ground. The shift to which Hofmann, J/.c., resorts, that the apostle does 
not at all say that he has preached in all Judaea—he certainly does say so 
—but only that his preaching had sounded forth thither, is the less re- 
quired, as he here summarily comprehends his whole working. — zpdcoovrac] 
aceusative.’ — Paul certainly gives the contents of his preaching in a form 
reminding us of the preaching of the Baptist ;° but he thus speaks, because 
he stands before an assembly before which he had to express himself in the 
mode most readily understood by it, and after a type universally known 
and venerated, for the better disclosure of the injustice done to him (évexa 
robrwv, ver. 21!); to set forth here the pvorjpiov of his gospel, with which 
he filled up this form, would have been quite out of place. Without reason, 
Zeller and Baur’ find here a denial of the doctrine of justification by faith 
alone ; an opinion which ought to have been precluded by the very rioreı 
Th eic éué, ver. 18, which leaves no doubt as to what was in the mind of the 
apostle the specific qualification for petavociv . . . mpdooovrac. 

Vv. 21, 22. "Evera toirwv.] because I have preached this peravoeiv and 
Eniorp£deıw among Jews and Gentiles. — dıayeıp.] Beza correctly explains: 
‘‘manibus suis interficere.’’*— évxovpiac oiv . . . Ocov] This oöv infers 
from the preceding Zreıp. diayerp. that the Zoryka aype tHe juép. Tabtye 1S 
effected through help of God, without which no deliverance from such ex- 
treme danger to life could come. Observe withal the triumphant éoryxa, I 
stand, keep my ground ! — naprvpovuevos uirpo te kat ueyaAw] as one witnessed 
to by small and great, i.e. who has a good testimony from young and old.’ 
Accordingly, uaprvpouuevoc is to be taken quite regularly as passive, and that 
in its very current sense ;!® while wxp& and ueyaAw are the datives usual 
with the passive construction."! The wsual rendering, following the Vul- 
gate: witnessing to small and great,” i.e. ‘‘instituens omnis generis hom- 
ines,’’! arbitrarily assumes a deviation from linguistic usage, as waprupeiodar 
is always used passively, on which account, in 1 Thess. ii. 12, the reading 


1 eis, as in Luke viii. 34, and frequently ; see 8 See on v. 30. Comp. xxi. 30, 31. 
on ix. 28, xxiii. 11. 9 viii. 10. 
2 The mparov belongs only to rots ev Aapa- 10 As in vi. 3, x. 22 al. 
exe, not also to ‘IepoooA. (Hofmann, N. 7. 11 See on Matt. v. 21, instead of which imo 
I. p. 118), as between Damascus and Jerusa- is used in x. 22, xvi. 2, xxii. 12. 
lem, in the consciousness of the apostle (Gal. 12 Erasmus, Castalio, Calvin, Bengel, and 
i. 18), there lay an interval of three years. others take xp. 7. x. peyaA. in the sense of 
3 See ver. 21. rank: to persons of low and of high degree. 
4 Zeller. This is historically unsuitable to the correct 


5 See Bornemann, ad Xen. Anab. i. 2.1; view of kaprupovn., as Paul was despised and 
Kühner, ad Mem.i.1.9; Breitenb. ad Oecon. persecuted by the great of this world. The 
i. 4. wisdom, which he preached, was not at all 

6 Luke iii. 8. theirs, 1 Cor. ii. 6 ff. 

7 Bee also his neutest. Theol. p. 333. 13 Kuinoel, 


PAUL’S REPLY TO FESTUS. : 469 


naprupöuevo: is necessarily to be defended.’ See Rinck,? who, however, as 
also de Wette, Baumgarten, Ewald, declares for the reading paprupdu. ; this, 
although strongly attested (see the critical remarks), is an old, hasty 
emendation, which was regarded as necessary to suit the dative. But in 
what a significant contrast to that deadly hatred of his enemies appears 
the statement :* ‘‘ By help of God I stand till this day, well attested by smalt 
and great’?! The following words then give the reason of this paprupot- 
pevog : because I set forth nothing else than what (ov = tobttwv a) the prophets, 
etc. — pedAdvrov] On the attraction, see Lobeck ;* and on the expres- 
sion ra u£AAovra yiveodar, Jacobs.® 

Ver. 23 is to be separated simply by a comma from the preceding: 
What the prophets and Moses have spoken concerning the future, whether — 
whether, namely—the Messiah is exposed to suffering, etc. Paul expresses 
himself in problematic form (ei), because it was just the point of debate 
among the Jews whether a suffering Messiah was to be believed in,° as in 
fact such an one constantly proved an offence unto them.’ ‘‘ Res erat 
liquida ; Judaei in quaestionem vocarant,’’ Bengel. Paul in his preaching 
has said nothing else than what Moses and the prophets have spoken as - 
the future state of the case on this point; he has propounded nothing 
new, nothing of his own invention, concerning it. zaßnröc, passibilis,® not, 
however, in the metaphysical sense of susceptibility of suffering, but of the 
divine destination to suffering: subjected io suffering.” The opposite arabic 
in classic writers since the time of Herodotus.’ — The other point of the 
predictions of Moses and the prophets, vividly introduced without a con- 
necting particle, in respect of which Paul had just as little deviated from 
their utterances, is : whether the Messiah as the first from the resurrection of 
the dead, as the first for ever risen, as mpwrörorog Ex TOv vexpov," will proclaim 
light? to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles. The chief stress of this sen- 
tence lies on mpéroc é& avacr. verp@v ; for, if this was, in accordance with 
the O. T., appropriated to the Messiah as characteristic, thereby the 
oxavdadov of the cross of Christ was removed. After His resurrection Jesus 
proclaimed light to all the Gentiles by his self-communication in the Holy 
Spirit, whose organs and mediate agents the apostles and their associates 
were. 

Ver. 24. While he was thus speaking in his defence, Festus said with a loud 
voice,® Thou art mad, Paul! ravra is to be referred to the whole defence, 
now interrupted by Festus—observe the present participle—but in which 
certainly the words spoken last (obdéy éxrd¢ x.r.A.) were most unpalatable 


1 See Lünemann in loc. 
2 Tucubr. crit. p. 91. 
3 Ver. 21. 


amoßaAdvras. 
10 Comp. Justin. c. Tryph. xxxvi. p.133D: 
madmtos Xpratos mpoebnrteudn meAdeır eivaı, 


4 Ad Aj. 1006; Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 261 
(E. T. 305). 

5 Ad Philostr. p. 630. 
_ * John xii. 34. 
- 71Cor.1.3; Gal. v. 11. 

8 Vulgate. 

2Plut. Pelop. 16: 1d Oynrov Kat wabyrov 


11 Col. i. 18; comp. 1 Cor. xv. 33. 

12 Asin ver 18. 

13 See on Eph. ii. 17. 

14 Comp. on Col. i. 12. 

15 ney. TH dwrn, See on xiv. 10. 

16 As to dmodoy. rı, see on Luke xii, 11. 


470 CHAP. XXVI., 25-28. 


to the cold-hearted statesman, and at length raised his impatience to the 
point of breaking out aloud. His profane mind remained unaffected by 
the holy inspiration of the strange speaker, and took his utterances as the 
whims of a mind perverted by much study from the equilibrium of a sound 
understanding. His paivy! was indignant earnestness ; with all the more 
earnestness and bitterness he expressed the idea of eccentricity by this 
hyperbolical waivn, the more he now saw his hope of being enlightened as 
to the true state of matters grievously disappointed.’ That solicitude of 
the procurator,? which naturally governed his tone of mind, was much too 
anxious and serious for a jest, such as Olshausen takes it to be. Nor does 
peyddn Th gov suit this, on which Chrysostom already correctly remarks : 
otto jv x. öpyns } dovn. The explanation, thou art an enthusiast! is nothing 
but a mistaken softening of the expression.” However the furor propheti- 
cus may be nourished by plunging into roAA& ypaunara, the paivy in this 
sense is far less suited to the indignation of the annoyed Roman ; and that 
Paul regarded himself as declared by him to be a madman, is evident from 
ver. 25 (dAybeiacg x. owdpoc.).—Ta moAAd ce ypäuuara] multae literae,* the 
much knowledge, learning, with which thou busiest thyself.°. Not: the 
many books, which thou readest,° for, if so, we cannot see why the most 
naturally occurring word, ßıßAia or BißRoı, should not have been used.—The 
separation of 707%a from ypau. by the interposition of ce puts the emphasis 
on roAAd. Bengel correctly adds: ‘‘ Videbat Festus, naturam non agere 
in Paulo ; gratiam non vidit.”’ 

Ver. 25. ‘0 dé] wera érceckeiacg amorpıvöuevoc, Chrysostom.—aanbeiac k. cwdpoo. 
phuata| words, to which truth and intelligence, sound discretion, belong. arnBeıa 
may doubtless accompany enthusiastic utterance, but it is a characteristie 
opposed to madness. For passages in the classics where owopootvy is opposed 
to wavia, see Elsner and Raphel.” — aropß£yyouaı] ‘* aptum verbum,”’ Bengel. 
See on ii. 4. 

Ver. 26. In proof (ydép) that he spoke truly, and in his sound mind, Paul 
appeals to the knowledge of the king, in quo plus erat spei, Calvin. — rept 
rovrwv and rı tobrwy refer to what Paul had last said concerning the Mes- 
siah, which had overpowered the patience of Felix and drawn from him 
the waivn.® rovro is the same, but viewed together as an historical unity. 
éxiotaat With repi is not found elsewhere in the N. T., but often in Greek 
writers. — ovd&v] like nihil, in no respect” Taken as accusative of object, 
it would be inappropriate, on account of ri ;!° while, on the.sther hand, B 
has not ri.—Observe also the correlates &rioraraı and Aavdaveıw placed at 
the beginning. — ot . . . év ywvia| A litotes: not in a corner (év kpuxt@), but 
publicly in the sacred capital of the nation." 


1 Comp. Soph. O. R. 1300: tis a’, & rAnnor, 7 Plat. Prot. p. 323 B: 6 éxet cwdpoovvny 
mpogeßn maria. NyoDvro eivar TAANIN Acyeır, evravda paviarv. 
2 xxv. 26. Comp. also Luke viii. 35 ; 2 Cor. v. 13. 
3 So Kuhn (in Wolf), Majus (Obss. IY. p. 8 Comp. on tadra, ver. 24. 
11 ff.), Loesner, Schleusner, Dindorf. ® Kühner, ad Xen. Anad. vi. 6. 12. 
4 Vulgate. 10 Hence A E N** min. omit it (so Lachmann 
5 See on John vii. 15. and Bornemann. 


6 Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Hildebrand. 11 See examples in Wetstein. 2 


PAUL’S APPEAL TO AGRIPPA. 471 


Ver. 27. Instead of adding to the ‘‘ for this was not done in a corner’? as 
a second reason, ‘‘and the prophets in whom the king believes have fore- 
told it,’’ in the increased vehemence of his impassioned discourse! Paul 
turns to the king with the question: Believest thou the prophets? and im- 
mediately himself answers the question with confidence : I know that thou 
believest ! Thus with fervent earnestness he suddenly withdraws the sacred 
subject from merely objective contemplation, and brings it as a matter of 
conscience home to the king’s consciousness of faith. Paul could reason- 
ably say without flattery, oida, dre mioreverc, since Agrippa, educated as a 
Jew, could not have belief in the truth of the prophecies otherwise than as 
a heritage of his national training, although it had in his case remained 
simply theory, and therefore the words of the apostle did not touch his 
heart, but glanced off on bis polished and good-natured levity. 

Ver. 28. The king is of course well-meaning enough not to take amiss 
the burning words, but also, as a luxurious man of the world, sufficiently 
estranged from what is holy instantly to banish the transiently-felt impres- 
sion with haughtily contemptuous mockery. The conduct of Pilate in 
John xviii. 88 is similar to this and to ver. 32. —év oAiyo is to be taken as 
neuter, and without supplement,* namely : With little (év, instrumental) thou 
persuadest me to become a Christian! This sarcasm is meant to say: ‘‘ Thus 
summarily, thus brevi manu, you will not manage to win me over to Christian- 
ity.’? Appropriately, in substance, Oecumenius : &v d2iyw" Tourécte OV öAiywv 
pyuatov, év Bpax&cı Aöyoıc, Ev oAtyn diWackahia, Ywpi¢ ToAAOV mövov Kai ovvEeyod¢ 
diaAézewc. Most expositors either adopt the meaning * sometimes with and 
sometimes without the supplement of ypévw: in a short time;* or:° pro- 
pemodum, parum abest, quin. So also Ewald, who calls to his aid the 3 of 
value, for a little, i.e. almost. But in opposition to the view which takes 
it temporally, may be decisively urged the reading weyddAw, to be adopted 
instead of 707X6 in ver. 29 (see the critical remarks), an expression which 
proves that Paul apprehended é» dAiyw in a quantitative sense ; and there is 
no reason in the context for the idea, to which Calvin is inclined, following 
Chrysostom, that Paul took the word in one sense and the king in another. 
‘The same reason decides against the explanation propemodum, which also 
is not linguistically to be justified, for there must have been used either 
öAiyov,° oY öAiyov dei OY Tap’ dAiyov." — Lastly, that the words of the king are to 
be taken ironically, and not, with Heinrichs and many other expositors, as an 
earnest con? ‘sion, is evident even from the very improbability in itself of such 
a confession in view of the luxurious levity of the king, as well as from the 
name Xpioriavév, which, of Gentile origin,® carries with it in the mouth of 


1Comp. Dissen, ad Dem de cor. pp. 186, 5 Chrysostom, Valla, Luther, Castalio, Beza, 

2 As in Eph. iii. 3 (see ön loc.). [346. Piscator, Grotius, Calovius, and others, to 

8 Calvin, Wetstein, Kuinoel, Olshausen, Ne- which also the modica ex parte of Erasmus 
ander, de Wette, Lange. comes in the end. 

4 Pind. Pyth. viii. 131; Plat. Apol. p. 22 B; 6 Plat. Prot. p. 361 TC, Phaedr. p. 258 E; 


and see the passages in Raphel, Polyb. ; comp. Stallb. ad Plat. Rep. p. 563 B (Wolf, ad Dem. 
the analogous 6c’ oAiyov, Thuc. i. 77.4, ii 85. Lept. p. 238). 

2, iii. 43. 3; Schaefer, ad. Bos. Ellips. pp. 101, * Bernhardy, p. 258. 

553; and see on Eph. iii. 3. 8 See on xi. 26. 


472 CHAP. XXVI., 29-32. 


a Jew the accessory idea of heterodoxy and the stain of contempt.’ Schneck- 
enburger also would have the expression to be earnestly meant, but in fa- 
vour of the apologetic design imputed to the Book of Acts (F*). 

Ver. 29. In the full consciousness of his apostolic dignity, Paul now 
upholds the cause of the despised Xproriavov yevéoda as that which he would 
entreat from God for the king and all his present hearers, and which was 
thus more glorious than all the glory of the world. — eigaiuyy av ro 0:6] 7 
would indeed, in case of the state of the matter admitting it, pray to God.? 
Eiyeoda; with the dative, to pray to any one, only here in the N. T., but 
very frequently in classical writers. — In what follows o7uepov belongs to r. 
akovovrac p., not to yevéoda,*® as is to be inferred from év weyadw. — kai Ev 
bdiyw Kat Ev ueyaAo ov pdvov cé x.t.2.1 that as well by little as by great,—whether 
in the case of one, little,* and in the case of another, much,° may be em- 
ployed as a means for the purpose,* — not merely thou, but also all . . . were 
such also as I am, Christians. On xayo, comp. 1 Cor. vii. 7.7 — rapexröc Tov 
deou@v toitwv| The chains which had bound him in prison, and were again 
to bind him,* chaining him, namely, after the manner of the custodia mili- 
taris to the soldiers who watched him, he bore now hanging down freely 
on his arm.” The rapexröc «.7.2., although to the apostle his chains were 
an honour,'® is ‘‘ suavissima Zridepareia et exceptio,’’ !! in the spirit of love. 

Vv. 30-32. Perhaps this bold, grand utterance of the singular man had 
made an impression on the king’s heart, the concealment of which might 
have occasioned embarrassment to him, had he listened any longer : Agrippa 
arose and thereby brought the discussion at once to a close. With him 
arose, in the order of rank, first the procurator, then Bernice, then all who 
sat there with them (oi cvyxadjuevoe abrtoic). After they had retired from 
the audience chamber (ävayopyjoavrec), they communicated to each other 
their unanimous opinion, which certainly amounted only to the superficial 
political negative : this man, certainly by the most regarded as a harmless 
enthusiast, practises nothing which merits death or bonds. But Agrippa 
delivered specially to Festus his opinion to this effect: this man might, 
already, have been set at liberty,” if he had not appealed unto Caesar, by which 
the sending him to Rome was rendered irreversible. '* — mpaooeı] practises, 


anIGECiasbve Ge év neyaAo. Ewald, likewise following the 


2See on this use of the optative with av, 
Fritzsche, Conject. I. p. 34 f.; Bernhardy, p. 
410; Kriiger, § 54, 3. 6. 

3 Chrysostom. 

4 See on ver. 28. 

5 Komos Kk. movos ev TH SiSacKaAca, Oecume- 
nius, reading Ev moAA@. 

® The interpreters who take *v dAiy» as 
brevi tempore (see on ver. 28) here translate 
(according to the reading woAA@): “beit for 
short or for long’’ (de Wette). Those who 
tike ev oAryw as propemodum, translate : ‘non 
propemodum tantum, sed plane’ (Grotius). 
With our view of er oAcyw, the reading ev 
moAAw makes no difference of meaning from 


reading év pey., takes ev also here consist. 
ently in the sense of value: by Ziftle and by 
much, that is, by all I wish, etc. 

7 Baeumlein, Partik. p. 158. 

8 Comp. on xxiv. 3, 27, xxviii. 30. 

° Comp. Justin. xiv. 4, 1. 

10 Eph. iii. 1, iv. 1; Philem. 1. Comp. Phil. 
Dir t. 

11 Bengel. 

12 Not “dimitti poterat,’” Vulg. Luther, and 
others. See in opposition to this, and on the 
expression without av, Buttmann, neut. Gr. 
pp. 187, 195 (E. T. 216, 226). Comp. also 
Nägelsb. on the Iliad, p. 480, ed. 3. 

13 See Grotius. 


NOTES. 443 


Grotius rightly remarks: ‘‘agit de vitae instituto :’? hence in the present.‘ 
— The “recognition of the innocence of the apostle in all judicatures’’? is 
intelligible enough from the truth of his character, and from the power of 
his appearance and address ; and, in particular, the closing utterance of 
Agrippa finds its ground so vividly and with such internal truth in the 
course of the procecdings, that the imputation of a set purpose on the 
author’s part * can only appear as a frivolously dogmatic opinion, proceed- 
ing from personal prepossessions tending in a particular direction. The 
apostle might at any rate be credited, even in his situation at that time, 
with an azddecEce rveluaros K. Övvanewc, 1 Cor. il, 4. 


NoTES py AMERICAN EDITOR. 
(Ft) Almost thou persuadest me. Y. 28. 


While Festus was in a state of perplexity in respect to Paul, a distinguished 
visitor came to congratulate him on his accession to his exalted position. This 
was Agrippa, the great grandson of Herod the Great, and at that time King of 
Chaleis. Subsequently his kingdom was greatly enlarged. He was the brother 
of the infamous Drusilla, who lived with Felix, and of the equally infamous 
Bernice, who lived with himself, and who accompanied him at this time to the 
city which their great-grandfather had built, and where he miserably perished. 
During their visit Festus took occasion to refer to the perplexing case of the 
prisoner Paul ; he informed Agrippa of the madness which seemed to inspire 
the Jewish people at the mere mention of the name of Paul, and of the futile 
results of the trial just concluded. He stated further that the questions at 
issue pertained to their own religious or superstitious observances, and to one 
Jesus, who had been crucified by them, but whom Paul affirmed to be alive, 
and further that the prisoner had declined to be tried again by the Sanhedrim 
and had appealed to the emperor. 

On hearing this recital Agrippa expressed a wish to hear the man. So Fes- 
tus, willing to gratify his princely guests, ordered the auditorium in the palace 
to be prepared, and invited the officers of the army and the chief men of the 
city to attend ; and as the herods were vain and fond of show, he arranged a 
gorgeous procession, so that Agrippa and Bernice came in royal state, ‘‘ she, 
doubtless, blazing with all her jewels, and hein his purple robes, and both 
with the golden circlets of royalty around their foreheads.” Into the presence 
of this vain, weak king and his radiantly beautiful but notoriously profligate 
companion, and the vast, brilliant assemblage Paul, shackled and pale from 
long imprisonment, is brought. 

Festus opened the proceedings, which were in no sense a trial, as the appeal 
to Cesar arrested all further legal proceedings, with stating the reasons for 
calling such an assembly, and by making some complimentary allusions to 
Agrippa, stating also clearly that he found the prisoner had done “nothing 
worthy of death.” 


ı Comp. John iii. 20; Rom. i. 32 al. ; John 3**TIn order that, with the Gentile testi- 
“Vil. 51 monies, xxv. 18, 25, a Jewish one might not 
2 Zeller, comp. Baur. be wanting,” Zeller. 


ANA CHAP. XXVI.—NOTES. 


The king intimated that Paul might now make his address. The apostle, 
undaunted by the pompous inanities of reflected power around him, with calm 
dignity and perfect self-possession makes his own defence against the charge 
of heresy, and specially offers a powerful plea for the truth of Christianity. 
He expressed himself as pleased to have the privilege of speaking in the pres- 
ence of one who, from his training, was a competent judge of the questions 
at stake. He asked for a patient hearing, and once more narrated the familiar 
story of his wonderful conversion from the bigoted, fiery, persecuting spirit he 
had formerly manifested against Christ and his followers, to a firm belief that 
the Messianic hopes of his people had been actually realized in Jesus of Naz- 
areth, who had risen from the dead. He showed that he was no heretical 
schismatic, but had kept the law of Moses, and firmly believed that the 
promise given to the Jews of a Messiah was now fulfilled ; that the very thing 
for which he was accused was the great hope of the Jewish nation ; that the 
cause he now espoused he once hated, and conscientiously and violently per- 
secuted with a zeal and bitterness more intense than their own; that this 
change in his convictions and the commission he received to preach Jesus and 
the resurrection were divine ; and that his work was in strict accordance with 
the prophets of the Old Testament. 

Festus, struck by the earnest enthusiasm of the eloquent prisoner, interrupts 
him with the excited exclamation, “ Paul, thou art mad ; these writings have 
turned your brain!’’ Paul with perfect calmness and exquisite courtesy re- 
plies, ‘‘ lam not mad, most noble Festus ; what I have said is the sober, well- 
attested truth, as the king himself can witness, for these marked events did 
not take place in a corner.” Then turning to the king he asked, ‘‘ Believest 
thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.” Agrippa, unwilling to be led 
into a discussion of this kind, replied with good-natured contempt, a scarcely 
suppressed smile, and courtly wit, perhaps with derisive irony, ‘‘ You will soon 
be waking mea Christian !” Paul, casting his eye over the splendid and numer- 
ous audience, gave a most earnest and sincere reply to the bantering jest of the 
king. Raising his manacled hand, he said : ‘‘ I would have wished God, both 
in little and in much, not only thee, but also all those hearing me to-day, to 
become such as I also am, except these bonds.” 


*“No more he feels upor his high-raised arm 
The ponderous chain, than does the playful child 
The bracelet, formed of many a flowery link ; 
Heedless of self, forgetful that his life 
Is now to be defended by his words, 
He only thinks of doing good to them 
That seek his life.” (Graham.) 


After a brief consultation with each other Festus and Agrippa agreed that 
Paul might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed to Cesar ; but now, 
to Cesar he must go. 

The answer of Agrippa to Paul has been variously rendered as the language 
of sincere conviction, bitter irony, or courtly jest. Some render the phrase 
évodiyw, almost ; others, with Meyer, render the clause, with few words, or lightly ; 
some render : in a littie time, which may be taken either in earnest or in jest ; 
others render : in a small measure, or somewhat. As to the spirit of the reply, the 
general opinion of recent critics concurs with Meyer, that the words were ut- 


NOTES. 475 


tered in irony or jest. Alford, Eadie, Lange, Abbott, Plumptre, Schaff, Bloomfield, 
Hackett, and Taylor substantially agree with Meyer ; on the other hand, Calvin, 
Bengel, Stier, Alexander, Jacobus, Barnes, and Thomas, with some variations, 
agree in regarding the language as sincere. The Revised Version is decidedly 
in favor of Meyer's view, ‘‘ With but little persuasion thou wouldst fain make 
me a Christian.” 


476 CRITICAL REMARKS. 


CHAPTER XXVL. 


VER. 2. uweAAovrı] So AB NS, min. and most vss. Approved by Mill., Bengel, 
and Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born, The usual péAdovres is an alter- 
ation in accordance with the preceding ZrıBavres. — TovS] Lachm, reads eis rovs, 
following AB S min. Other codd. have ézi. Different supplementary addi- 
tions. — Ver. 3, mopevdevra] Lachm, reads ropevdevrı, following AB N min. 
A hasty correction on account of émétpeye. — Ver. 12. xarxeidev] Lachm. and 
Scholz read £xeidev, following ABG N min. vss. Chrys. But the want of a 
reference of the «ai in what goes before easily occasioned the omission. —Ver. 
19. éApupav] Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm, and Born., after A B C'8, 
min. Vulg. The Recepta is éApipayev. As this might just as easily be inserted 
on account of aitdyepes, as Eprpav on account of éxovoivto, the preponderance 
of witnesses has alone to decide, and that in favour of &öhun)av. — Ver. 23. The 
order tavty 7H vurri (Lachm. Tisch. Born., also Scholz) is decidedly attested. 
*Ayyedos is to be placed, with Lachm. Tisch. Born., only after Aatpevw (A BC &, 
min.) and &yo is to be adopted (with Lachm. and Born.) after eiui, on the evi- 
dence of A C* N, min. vss. ; it might very easily be suppressed before 6. — Ver. 
27. Ey&vero] A, loti 68, Vulg. have ézeyévero. So Tisch. ; and rightly, as the 
very unusual compound (only again in xxviii. 13) was easily neglected by the 
transcribers, — According to preponderating attestation, cava (instead of eis) is 
to be read in ver. 29 with Lachm. Tisch. Born. ; comp. vv. 17, 26, 41. — 
Ermeoouev] Elz. has éxzéowowr, against decisive testimony. Alteration to suit 
the following yiyovro. — Ver. 33. mpoolaßöusvoı] Lachm. reads mpooAaußavöuevoı, 
merely in accordance with A, 40. But the part. pres. is to be viewed as an al- 
teration to suit mpoodokövres. — Ver. 34. wetadaBeiv] Elz. has rpooaßeiv against 
preponderant testimony. From ver. 33. — reseita:] Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, 
Tisch. Born. read aroAeiraı, which indeed has weighty attestation in its favour, 
but against it the strong suspicion that it was borrowed from Luke xxi. 18. 
This tells likewise against the Recepta éx, instead of which 476 is to be read, 
with Lachm. Tisch. Born. It is less likely that reoeira: should have been taken 
from the LXX. 1 Kings i. 52; 1 Sam. xiv. 45; 2 Sam. xiv. 11. — Ver. 39. 
éBovaetoavto] Lachm. and Born. read 23ovAsvovro after B C 8, min. But on 
account of the preceding imperfects, the imperfect here also was easily brought 
in; and hence is to be explained the reading (explanatory gloss) &ßovAovro in 
A, min, — Ver. 41. röv kuudrov] has in its favour C G H N** dnd all min. Chrys. 
and most vss., and is wanting only in A B 8*. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 
There is, however,—especially as with 775 Aıas a definition, although not 
necessary, is probable,—amidst such strong attestation less a suspicion of its 
being a supplementary addition, than a probability that the transcribers con- 
founded this rév with the röv of ver. 42 and thus overlooked rov kvuarwv, 
Besides, it would have more naturally suggested itself to a glossator to write on 
the margin 775 Oaddoo. than r. kvudrov, which does not again occur in the whole 
narrative of this voyage. — Ver, 42. Elz. has dıadöyoı. But Griesb. Lachn. 


VOYAGE TO ITALY. AT 


Tisch. read dıadüyn, which is attested, indeed, by ABC 8, min., but has arisen 
from the usual custom of the N. T. in such combinations to put not the opta- 
tive, but the subjunctive. — On the variations in the proper names in this 
chapter, see the exegetical remarks, 


Ver. 1.* Tov arorieiv juac] contains the aim of the éxpify. ‘‘ But when, by 
Festus, decision was made, to the end that we should sail away.” The 
nature of the ‘‘ becoming resolved”? (kpiveoda:) implies that the object—the 
contents of the resolution—may be conceived as embraced under the form 
of its aim. The modes of expression: xeAevewy iva, eimeiv iva, OéAew iva, and 
the like, are similar; comp. ver. 42, Sovd) éyévero, iva.” —7juac] Luke 
speaks as a fellow-traveller. — zapedidovv] namely, the persons who were 
entrusted with the execution of the &xpißr. — Er£povc is purposely chosen, 
not dAdAovc, to intimate that they were prisoners of another sort, not also 
Christians under arrest.* érepoc in xv. 35, xvii. 34, also is to be similarly 
taken in the sense of another of two classes, in opposition to de Wette. — 
oreipng Zeßaor.] cohortis Augustae, perhaps: the illustrious, the imperial, 
cohort. Zeßaor, is an adjective.* Probably, for historical demonstration 
is not possible, it was that one of the five cohorts stationed at Caesarea, 
which was regarded as body-guard of the emperor, and was accordingly 
employed, as here, on special services affecting the emperor. We have no 
right, considering the diversity of the names used by Luke, to hold it as 
identical wlth the oreipa ’Iradıry, x. 1, so Ewald. Weiseler ® finds here the 
cohors Augustanorum, imperial body-cohort, at Rome, consisting of Roman 
equites, of the so-called evocati,° whose captain, Julius, he supposes, has 
been at this very time on business at Caesarea, and had taken the prisoners 
with him on his return. In this way the centurion would not have been 
under the command of Festus at all, and would have only been incidentally 
called into requisition, which is hardly compatible with the regulated de- 
partmental arrangements of Rome in the provinces ; nor is there in the text 
itself, any more than in the oreipa 'IraAıry, x. 1, the least intimation that we 
are to think of a cohort and a centurion, who did not belong at all to the 
military force of Caesarea. Schwarz,” with whom Kuinoel agrees, con- 
ceived that it was a cohort consisting of Sebastenes, from Scbaste, the cap- 
ital of Samaria, as in fact Sebastene soldiers are actually named by 
Josephus among the Roman military force in Judea.* But the calling a 
cohort by the name of a city, the cohort of Sebaste, 1s entirely without ex- 


1 Comp. on chap. xxvii. the excellent trea- 
tise of James Smith, The Voyage and Ship- 
wreck of St. Paul, London 1848, ed. 2, 1856; 
Vömel, Progr., Frankf. 1850; in respect of 
the language, Klostermann, Vindiciae Luc. 
VII. —In Baumgarten there is much allegoriz- 
ing and play of fancy; he considers the apostle 
as the trwe Jonah, and the ship's crew as a 
representative of the whole heathen world.— 
Hackett treats chap. xxvii. with special care, 
haying made use of many accounts of travels 
and notes of navigation. 


2 See also Luke iv. 10. 

3 Comp. Luke xxiii. 32; Tittmann, Synon. 
NV. T. p. 155 f.; and see on Gal. i. 7. 

4 Comp. Acunv Seßacr. in Joseph. Antt. xvii- 
5.1: the imperial harbour (in Caesarea). 

5 Chronol. p. 351, and Beitr. z. Wiirdig. a. 
Ev. p. 325 (comp. Wetstein). 

6 Tac. Ann. xiv. 15; Sueton. Nero, 25 ; Dio, 
Ixi. 20, 1xiii. 8. 

7 De cohorte Ital. et Aug., Altorf, 1720. 

8 Antt. xx. 6. 2, Bell. ii. 12. 5. 


478 CHAP. XXVII., 1-8. 


ample ; we should necessarily expect Zeßaornvöv,! or an adjective of locality, 
such as Seßaorzvn, after the analogy of ’IraAıry, x. 1. — Nothing further is 
known of the centurion Julius. Tacitus? mentions a Julius Priscus as cen- 
turion of the Praetorians ; but how extremely common was the name ! 

Ver. 2. ’Erıßävrec] with dative, see on xxv. 1.—rAoip ’Adpau.] a ship 
which belonged to Adramyttium, had its home there, the master of which 
resided there. ’Adpayirriov, or ’Adpauirrecov,® was a seaport of Mysia, and 
is not to be confounded with Adrumetum on the north coast of Africa,* be- 
cause amidst all the variations in the codd. (’Adpauvvrıvo, ’Adpauvvrmvo, 
’Arpauvryvo, ”Adpauuvrwo) the v in the middle syllable is decidedly pre- 
ponderant. —éAdovte rAciv x.t.A.] The ship, certainly a merchant-ship, 
was thus about to start on its homeward voyage. The prisoners were 
by this opportunity to be brought to the Asiatic coast, and sent 
thence by the opportunity of another vessel® to Italy. —roi¢ xara 7. ’Aciav 
réxovc] to navigate the places situated along Asia, on the Asiatic coast.° — 
"Aptorapxov]” Thus he also had from Asia® come again to Paul; Trophi- 
mus° already joined him at Jerusalem. But whether Aristarchus accom- 
panied Paul as a ‚fellow-prisoner '' does not follow with certainty from Col. 
ive 1022 i 

Ver. 3. Eic Sidéva] unto Sidon, into the seaport.’? — ypyodaı rıvi] to have 
intercourse, fellowship, with any one.” The fact that the centurion treated 
Paul so kindly may be sufficiently explained from the peculiar interest, 
which a character so lofty and pure could not but awaken in humane and 
unprejudiced minds. It may be also that the procurator had specially 
enjoined a gentle treatment. — ropevdévra is to be analysed as accusative 
with infinitive.’* — rpöc r. giAove] Without doubt Paul had told the cen- 
turion that he had ‚friends, namely, Christian brethren,’® in Sidon. Still 
the centurion would not leave him without military escort, as indeed his 
duty required this.*® 

Vv. 4, 5. "Yremievo. tr. Kirpov] We sailed under Cyprus, so that we re- 
mained near the shore, elevated above the levelof the sea, because the 
(shifting) winds were contrary, and therefore made a withdrawal to a dis- 
tance from the northern shore not advisable. —xarad r. Kuidix.] along. 
Just so ver. 7,—xkar& Laduovyv ; comp. ver. 2.—Miépa] or, as Lachmann, 
following B, reads, Möppa—it is neuter, yet the feminine form was also 





used'’—was a seaport of Lycia, only twenty stadia from the coast.'8 The 
1 Joseph. Bell. ii. 12. 5: ‘‘ tAnv imméwy kakov- ® See on xxi. 29. 

pevnv YeBaotnvarv.”” 10 Ewald. 
2 Hist. ii. 92, iv. 11. 11 See in loc. 
3 For several other modes of writing the 12 Comp. xxi. 3, xxvi. 12. 

name, see Steph. Byz. s.v.; Poppo, ad Thue. 13 See Wetstein, and Ruhnk. ad Tim. p. 101. 

I. 2, p. 441 f. 14 See on xxvi. 20, and Lobeck, ad Soph. 
4 Grotius, Drusius, Richard Simon. Aj. 1006. ‘ 
5 Ver. 6. 15 ix, 19. 
® On the accusative, see Winer, p. 210 (E. T. 1° Comp. Grotius, “ cum milite.” 

280); Thuc. vi. 63. 2: mAdovtes Ta TE Emekeıva 17 See Steph. Byz. s.v. 

THs ZıreXias. Pausan. 1. 35. 18 Strabo, xiv. p. 981. Forbig. Geogr, Il. p, 


7 See xix. 29, xx. 4; Col. iv. 10; Philem. 24. 256. 
8 xx. 4, 


FAIR HAVENS. 479 


readings Atotpa or Avorpav,' and Spipvav,? are explained from want of ac- 
quaintance with that name of a town. 

Vv. 6, 7. Whether the Alexandrian ship was freighted with grain, which 
at least is not to be proved from ver. 38, or with other goods, cannot be 
determined ; as also whether it was by wind and weather, or affairs of 
trade, that it was constrained not to sail directly from Alexandria to Italy, 
but first to run into the Lycian port. — r?£ov] It was already on its voyage 
from Alexandria to Italy. —éveZ. juäac] he embarked us, put us on board, 
a vor nautica® (G*). See examples in Palairet and Wolf. — Ver. 7. But 
when we had made slow way for a considerable number of days, and had come 
with difficulty toward Cnidus, into its neighbourhood, thus in the offing, 
having passed along by Rhodes, so that the wind did not allow us to land at 
Cnidus, we sailed under Crete, near Salmone. The wind thus came from the 
north, so that the vessel was drawn away from Cnidus and downward 
towards Crete.—rpoceovroc] finds a definite reference in the immediately 
preceding «ata ryv Kvidov, and hence the view of Grotius, following the 
Peshito, that rectwm tenere cursum should be supplied, is to be rejected. — 
Cnidus was a city of Caria on the peninsula of Cnidia, celebrated for the 
worship of Aphrodite and for the victory of Cimon over Pisander.* — The 
promontory LaAuorn, on the east coast of Crete, is called in Strabo,° SaApdvor, 
and in Dionys.® Yaduwric. 

Ver. 8. Ilapatéyecta:] corresponds entirely to the Latin legere, oram, to 
sail along the coast.” This keeping to the coast was only with difficulty 
(udduc) successful. — aurzv refers to 7. Kpyrmv. — Nothing is known from 
antiquity of the anchorage KaAoi Aiuévec—Fair Havens ® (H‘). — The name 
is perhaps, on account of ver. 12 (davevférov «.r.A.), to be considered as 
euphemistic. The view that the place is identical with the town called by 
Stephanus Byzantinus Ka? ax7#, is improbable, because the Fair Havens 
here was not a town, as may be inferred from the appended remark: & 
The preterite belongs to the graphic de- 
They saw the neighbouring city.° 


éyyie qv mörıc Aac. — jv] not Eori. 
scription. The town Aacaia also is en- 
tirely unknown ; hence the many variations, Aacéa,!! "Araoca,!” Thalassa,!? 
Thessala.'* The evidence in support of these other forms is not strong 
enough to displace the Recepta,'® seeing that it is also supported by B x*, 
which has Aaooala. Beza conjectured ’EAaia ;1% but such a conjecture, es- 
pecially in the case of Crete with its hundred cities, was uncalled for. 


ı AN, Copt. Vulg. Fathers. 

231, Beda. 

3 Baumgarten, IT. p. 373 f., collects the nau- 
tical expression of this chapter, adducing, 
however, much that belongs to the general 
langnage. 

4 See Forbiger, Geogr. II. p. 221. 

Bis Dp: Kal 

6 Perieg. 110. 

7 Diod. Sic. xiii. 3, xiv. 55. 

8 It is certainly the bay still called Zimenes 
ka’, Pococke, Morg. II. p. 361. Comp. Smith, 
p. SS, ed. 2. See, moreover, on the above 


localities generally, Hoeck, Kreta, I. p. 439 
ff. 
®Comp. Krüger, and Kühner, Ad Xen. 
Anab. i. 4.9; Breitenb. ad Xen. Hier. ix. 4. 

10 Yet see on ruins with this name, Smith, 
Pp. 262. 

11 B. min.: so Tischendorf. 

12 A, 40, 96, Syr. p. on the margin; so Gro- 
tius, Lachmann, Ewald. 

13 Vulgate, Aethiopic. 

14 Codd. Lat., et al. 

15 G. H. 

16 Plin, N. Z. iv. 12. 


” 


480 CHAP. XXVII., 9-14. 


Ver. 9. 'Ixavov dé xp. dıay.] namely, since the beginning of our voyage. 
— m%oös] See on this late form, instead of 740d, Lobeck.! — dua rd kai r. 
vnoreiav On maper.] because also, even, the fasting was already past.” The 
vnoreia, kar’ &£oxfv, is the fasting of the great day of atonement, which 
occurred on the 10th of Tisri.* It was thus already after the autumnal 
equinox, when navigation, which now became dangerous (éogad.), was 
usually closed.*— rapjver 6 II.] He had experience enough for such a counsel.° 

Vv. 10, 11. Oewpé] when I view the tumult of the sea. —örı . . . méAAewv 
&oeodaı) A mixing of two constructions, of which the former is neglected 
as the speech flows onward.® — pera bBpewc] with presumption. Paul warns 
them that the continuance of the voyage will not take place without temer- 
ity. Accordingly werd ößp. contains the subjective, and (wera) roAAje Cyuiac 
ov uövov x.t.A. the objective, detriment with which the voyage would be 
attended. The expositors—Ewald, however, takes the correct view— 
understand werd iBp. of the injuria or saevitia tempestatis. But as the defi- 
nition tempestatis has no place in the text, the view remains a very arbi- 
trary one, and has no corresponding precedent even in poets.’ The whole 
utterance is, moreover, the natural expression of just fear, in which case 
Paul could say juév without mistrusting the communication which he re- 
ceived in xxiii. 11; for by roAAjce the Cyyia rav woyor is affirmed, not of 
all, but only of a great portion of the persons on board. He only received 
at a later period the higher revelation, by which this fear was removed 
from him.* He speaks here in a way inclusive of others (juov), on account 
of their joint interest in the situation. A special ‘‘ entering into the fellow- 
ship of the Gentiles ’’° is as little indicated as is the assumption that he did 
not preach out of grief over the Jews. The present time and situation 
were not at all suitable for preaching. — &reidero wärdov] rois éurreipwe Eyouvor 
narov mpd¢ TO mAeiv, 7 Erıßarn ameipw vavrınjc, Oecumenius. So the opposite 
view of the steersman and captain of the ship, vaixAnpoc, prevailed with 
the centurion. By reason of the inconvenience of the haven for wintering, 
the majority of those on board came to the resolution, etc., ver. 12. 

Ver. 12. ’Avev6érov] not well situated, Hesychius and Suidas, elsewhere 
not found; the later Greeks have dicfetoc. They ought, according to 
the counsel of Paul, to have chosen the least of two evils. — xpid¢ rapa- 
xeyaciav] for passing the winter.‘ — kareidev] also from thence. As they had 
not hitherto lain to with a view to pass the winter, the resolution come to 
by the majority was to the effect of sailing onward from thence also. — 


1 Ad Phryn. p. 453, Paralip. p. 173. 
2 According to Bleek and de Wette, this 


6 See Heind. ad Plat. Phaed. p. 63 C ; Winer, 
p. 318 (E. T. 426), Raphel, Polyb. in loc. 


Jewish definition of time, as well as that con- 
tained in xx. 6, betrays a Jewish-Christian 
author. But the definitions of the Jewish 
calendar were generally, and very naturally, 
adopted in the apostolic church, _ Comp. 
Schneckenburger, p. 18. 

8 Lev. xvi. 29 ff., xxiii. 26 ff. 

4 Sce Wetstein, 

SSICOLISIN ED: 


Comp. on xix. 27, xxiii. 23 f. 

7 Comp. Pind. Pyth. i. 73: vavaiorovov uBpiw 
idwov, Anthol. ili. 22.58 : Seicaca HaAarrns Ußpır. 

8 See vv. 23, 24. 

® Baumgarten. 

10 Diod. Sic. xix. 68, and more frequently in 
Polybius. Comp. xxviii, 11. 

11 On édevto BovAyv, comp. Judg. xix. 30; 
Ps. xiii. 3. 


FROM MYRA TO CRETE. 481 


eiruc divarvro] &.e. in order to try, whether perhaps they would be able.‘ — The 
haven doivE is called in Ptolem. iii. 17, ®orvırovs, and the adjacent town 
boivı£. Stephanus Byzantinus, on the other hand, remarks : ®owıkovc mörıc 
Korn. Perhaps the two names were used in common of the haven and 
the city. Whether the haven was the modern Zutro, is uncertain.? — 
PAerew] quite like spectare, of the direction of the geographical position.’ 
— Aip is the Africus, the south-west wind, and Xöpoc the Caurus, the 
north-west. The haven formed such acurve, that one shore stretched 
toward the north-west and the other toward the south-west (1*). 

Ver. 13. But when gentler south winds had set in’—this was the motive of 
the following défavrec. As, namely, Fair Havens, where they were, and also 
Phoenix farther to the west, whither they wished to go, lay on the south 
coast of the island, the south wind was favourable for carrying out their 
resolution, because it kept them near to the coast and did not allow them 
to drift down into the southern sea. — xerparnkövar) to have become masters of 
their purpose, that is, to be able safely to accomplish it. Examples in 
Raphel, Polyb. —apavrec] namely, the anchor, which is understood of 
itself in nautical language : they weighed anchor.° — acoov mapeity. Tr. Kpar.] 
they sailed closer, than could previously, ver. 8, be done, along the coast of 
Crete. ücocov, nearer, the comparative of äypı, is not only found in poetry 
from the time of Homer, but also in prose.” The Vulgate, which Erasmus 
follows, has: cum sustulissent de Asson, so that thus AZZON is connected 
with äpavrec and regarded as the name of a city of Crete ;° hence also Elz., 
Mill, Scholz have 'Aooov, as a proper name. But as this translation is at 
variance with the words as they stand, Luther, Castalio, Calovius, and 
several older expositors have taken "Accov as the accusative of direction : 
cum sustulissent Assum. But, even if the little town had really been situ- 
ated on the coast, which does not agree with Plin. /.c., the expression 
would have been extremely harsh, as äpavrsc does not express the notion 
of direction ; and not only so, but also the mere accusative of direction 
without a preposition is only poetical,’ and is foreign to the N. T. 

Ver. 14. *EGate] intransitive: fell upon, threw itself against it; often 
in the classical writers after Homer. — ar’ auryc] refers to the nearest 
antecedent Kpyrmw, not’ to rpobéc. — äveuoc rugwviröc] The adjective is 
formed from ruo&v, a whirlwind, and is found also in Eustathius.!! — Eipo- 
KAbdwv] the broad-surging, from eipoc, breadth, and Kaito. It is usually ex- 
plained: Zurus fluctus exeitans, from Eöpoc, the south-east wind, and 
xAbdov. But this compound would rather yield an appellation unsuitable 
for a wind: south-east wave, fluctus euro excitatus. EöpvrAbdwv.'” from eipic, 


1 See Hartung, Partikell. IL. p. 206. 1, al. [iv.12. 


2 In opposition to Smith, p. 88, see Hackett. 
3 See Alberti, Odss. p. 274; Kypke, I. p. 


134 f. 
4 See Kapp, ad Aristot. de mundo Exc. II. 


5 uromvevac., Arist. probl. viii. 6; Heliodor. 


iii. 3. 
6 See Bos, Zllips., ed. Schaefer, p. 14 f. 


7 Herod. iii. 52, iv. 5; Joseph. Antt. i. 20. 


8"Agos in Steph. Byz., Asus in Plin. H. N. 

® Kühner, II. p. 204. 

10 Luther. 

11 See Wetstein. 

12 Defended by Toup, Hmend. in Suidam. 
IIT. p. 506. Comp. Etym. M. p. 772, 31: ruday 
yap éare y TOV avemov opddpa TVvoN, Os Kai EVpUK~ 
Avéwy KadetTat. 


482 CHAP. XXVII., 15-1%. 


according to the analogy ef edpuxpeiur, eipruédov, edprdivyc, ete., would eer- 
tainly be more suitable to the explanation broad-surging ; but on this very 
account the reading EvpuxAidwv in B** 40, 133, is not to be approved with 
Griesbach, but to be considered as a correction. Lachmann and Borne- 
mann, followed by Ewald, Smith, and Hackett, have Evpaxidwv, according 
to As (Vulg. Cassiod.: Huroaquilo), which also Olshausen, after Eras- 
mus, Grotius, Mill, Bengel, and others, approves ; the best defence of this 
reading is by Bentley, in Wolf, Cur. This would be the east-north-east 
wind ; the compound formed, as in eupövoros,! euroauster, euroafricus. But 
the words of the text lead us to expect a special actual name (Kadoby.) of 
this particular whirlwind, not merely a designation of .its direction. It is 
difficult also to comprehend why such an easily explicable name of a wind 
as Huroaquilo, evxpaxidwv, should have been converted into the difficult and 
enigmatic EbporAbdwv. Far more naturally would the converse take place, 
and the EöporAbdwv, not being understood, would be displaced by the sim- 
ilar EvpaxiAwy formed according to the well-known analogy of Eipévoroc 
K.r.A.; so that the latter form appears a product of old emendatory conjec- 
ture. Besides, EvpaxiAwr, if it were not formed by a later hand from the 
original EvporAvdov, would be an improbable mixture of Greek and Latin, 
and we do not see why the name should not have had some such form as 
EipoBopéac ; axibAwv = aquilo, is nowhere found (9°). 

Ver. 15. Zvvapracd.] but when the ship was hurried along with the whirl- 
wind. — On ävrogdarueiv, to look in the face, then to withstand.” — éxiévrec] 
may either, with the Vulgate, data nave flatibus ferebamur, Luther, Elsner, 
and many others, be referred to 7d mAoiov, or be taken in a reflexive sense :*® 
we gave ourselves up and were driven.* The former is simpler, because r. 
rAolov precedes. 

Ver. 16. KAaödn, or according to Ptol. iii. 7 KAaidoc, or according to Mela 
ii. 7 and Plin. iv. 20 Gaudos, according to Suidas Kavdé, was the name of 
the modern Gozzo to the south of Crete. From the different forms of the 
name given by the ancients must be explained the variations in the codd. 
and vss., among which Kaöda is attested by B s** Syr. Aeth. Vulg., 
adopted by Lachmann, and approved by Ewald. We cannot determine 
how Luke originally wrote the name; still, as most among the ancients 
have transmitted it without A, the 2, which has in its favour AG H x* vss. 
and the Greek Fathers, has probably been deleted by subsequent, though 
in itself correct, emendation. -—rjc oxaonc] they could scarcely become 
masters *® of the boat, belonging to the ship, which swam attached to it, 
when they wished to hoist it up,° that it might not be torn away by the 
storm. 





Ver. 17. And after they had drawn this up, they applied means of protection, 
undergirding the ship. This undergirding * took place, in order to diminish 


1 Gel. ii. 22. 10. 5 mepırpareis, Simmias in the Anthol. I. p. 
2 See Schweigh. Lex. Polyb. p. 57. Comp. 137, Jacobs. 

Ecclus. xix. 6; Wisd. xii. 14. 6 Vv. 17, 30. 
3 Raphel, Wolf, Bengel, Kypke. 7 Polyb. xxvii. 3. 3. 


4 Comp. Lobeck, ad Aj. 250. 


A STORM AT SEA. 483 


the risk of foundering, by means of broad ropes,! which, drawn under the 
ship and tightened above, held its two sides more firmly together.” By 
Bontleiace is to be understood all kinds of helpful apparatus * which they had 
in store for emergencies, as ropes, chains, beams, clamps, and the like. 
The referring it to the help rendered by the passengers,’ which was a matter 
of course amidst the common danger, makes the statement empty and un- 
necessary. — soßolusvol re x.7.A.] and fearing to strike on the nearest Syrtis. 
It is entirely arbitrary to understand 737» LYiprw, without linguistic prece- 
dent, in the wider sense of a sandbank,° and not of the African Syrtis. Of 
the two Syrtes, the Greater and the Lesser, the former was the nearest. As 
the ship was driven from the south coast of Crete along past the island of 
Clauda, and thus ran before the north-east wind, they might well, amidst 
the peril of their situation, be driven to the fear lest, by continuing their 
course with full sail, they might reach the Greater Syrtis ; and how utterly 
destructive that would have been ! 7 — ixrirrew, of ships and shipwrecked 
persons, which are cast, out of the deep, navigable water, on banks, rocks, 
islands, shoals, or on the land, is very common from Homer onward.* — ro 
orevoc] the gear, the tackle, is the general expression for all the apparatus of 
the ship.” The context shows what definite tackle is here meant by specify- 
ing the aim of the measure, which was to prevent the ship from being cast 
upon the Syrtis, and that by withdrawing it as far as practicable from the 
force of the storm driving them towards the Syrtis. This was done by 
their lowering the sails, striking sail, and accordingly choosing rather to 
abandon the ship without sails to the wind, and to allow it to be driven 
(otrw¢ é¢épovro), than with stretched sails to be cast quickly, and without 
further prospect of rescue, on the Syrtis. Already at a very early date ro 
oxevoc Was justly explained of the sails, and Chrysostom even read ta iorıa. 
According to Smith, the lowering of the rigging is meant, by which the 
driving of the ship in a straight direction was avoided. But this presup- 
poses too exact an acquaintance with their position in the storm, consid- 
ering the imperfection of navigation in those times; and both the follow- 
ing description, especially ver. 20, and the measure adopted in ver. 29, 
lead us to assume that they had already relinquished the use of the sails. 
But the less likely it is that in the very exact delineation the account 
of the striking of the sails, which had not hitherto taken place, in opposi- 
tion to Kypke and Kuinoel, should have been omitted, and the more defi- 
nitely the collective meaning is applied in 7d oxeüoc, the more objectionable 


1 vmolwnara, tormenta. 

2 Yet it is doubtful whether the procedure 
was not such, that the ropes ran ina horizon- 
tal manner right round the ship (Boeckh, 
Stallb. ad Plat. l.c.). But see Smith. Comp. 


4See Wetstein. 

5 Grotius, Heinsius, and others. 

6 Bis, Tatvia, Epa, oTH OS. 

7 See Herod. iii. 25 f., iv. 173; Sallust. Jug. 
78 f. ; Strabo, xvii. p. 834 f. 


Plat. Rep. p. 616 C: oloy ra Umolunara Tov 
Tpınpwv, ovUTw macav £vvexwv Thy mepıbopar ; 
Athen. v. 37; and see generally Boeckh, Ur- 
kunden üb d. Seewesen des Attischen Staats, 
p. 133 ff.; Smith (The Ships of the Ancients), p. 
173 ff. ; Hackett, p. 426 fl. 

3 Aristot. Bhet. ii. 5. 


8 Locella, ad Xen. Eph. p. 239; Stallb. ad 
Piat. Phil. p. 13 D. 

9 Plat. Crit. p. 117 D3; cxevav öca tpijpece 
mpoonkeı, Dem. 1145. 1: oxen Tpınpapxıra, 
1145. 9; Xen. Oee. viii. 12. Polyb. xxii. 26. 13; 
and see Hermann, Privatalterth. § 50. 20. 


484 CHAP. XXVII., 18-25. 


appears the view of Grotius, Heinsius, Kuinoel, and Olshausen (after the 
Peshito), that 7d cxevoc is the mast. Still more arbitrary, and, on account 
of égépovro, entirely mistaken is the rendering of Kypke: ‘‘ demittentes 
ancoram,’’ and that of Castalio and Vatablus: ‘‘demissa scapha ;’’ see, on 
the other hand, ver. 30. ‘ 

Vv. 18, 19. ’Exßoryv &mowvvro] they made a casting out, i.e. they threw 
overboard the cargo.! For the lightening of the vessel in distress, in order 
to make it go less deep and to keep it from grounding, they got rid ir 
the first instance of what could, in the circumstances, be most fitly dis- 
pensed with, namely, the cargo; but on the day after they laid hands even 
on the oxevy tov mAoiov,” i.e. the ship's apparatus,—the utensils belonging to 
the ship, as furniture, beds, cooking vessels, and the like. The same 
collective idea, but expressed in the plural, occurs in Jonahi. 5. Others? 
understand the baggage of the passengers, but this is at variance with rov 
mAotov ; instead of it we should expect juév, especially as auröxyeıpes pre- 
cedes. Following the Vulgate, Erasmus, Grotius, and many others, includ- 
ing Olshausen and Ewald, understand the arma navis, that is, ropes, beams, 
and the like belonging to the equipment of the ship. But the tackling is 
elsewhere called ra ör?a, or ra cxety, from oxevos, and just amidst the danger 
this was most indispensable of all.—airéyerpec] with our own hands,* gives to 
the description a sad vividness, and does not present a contrast to the conduct 
of Jonah, who lay asleep,’ as Baumgarten in his morbid quest of types imagines. 

Ver. 20. Myre dé jAiov x.7.4.] For descriptions of storms from Greek and 
Roman writers, which further embellish this trait, see Grotius and Wetstein.*® 
— inıkeiodaı) spoken of the incessantly assailing storm.” — Aoımöv] ceterum in 
reference to time, ö.e. henceforth.* — juac| not juiv, which would not have 
been suitable to Paul,’ nor yet probably to his Christian companions. 

Vv. 21, 22. The perplexity had now risen in the ship to despair. But, 
as the situation was further aggravated by the fact that there prevailed in 
a high degree (oAAjc) that abstinence from food which anguish and despair 
naturally bring with them, Paul came forward in the midst of those on 
board (év u£ow airov), in the first instance with gentle censure, and after- 
wards with confident encouragement and promise. — On äoıria, jejunatio, 
comp. Herod. iii. 52 ; Eur. Suppl. 1105 ; Arist. Hth. x. 9 ; Joseph. Anté. xii. 7. 
1.1°— röre] then, in this state of matters, as in xxviii. 1.11 — orafeic «.r.A.] has 


1 Had the ship been loaded with ballast, 
and this been thrown out (Laurent), we should 
have expected a more precise designation 
(£pra). The oxevn, too, would not have been 
included in the category of things thrown out 
at once on the following day, but after the 
ballast would have come, in the first instance, 
the cargo. The ship was without doubt a 
merchant-vessel, and doubtless had no bal- 
last at all. Otherwise they certainly would 
have commenced with throwing the latter out, 
but would not thereupon have at once passed to 
the oxevn. Dem. 926. 17; Aesch. Sept. 769; Arist- 
Eth. iii.1; Pollux, i. 99; LXX. Jonahi.5. 


2 Diod. Sic. xiv. 79. 

3 Wetstein, Kypke, Rosenmiiller, Kuinoel. 

4 Hermann, ad Soph. Ant. 1160. 

5 Jonah i. 5. 

6 Virg. Aen. i. 85 ff., ii. 195 ff. ; Ach. Tat, 
ii. 2, p. 234, al. 

7 See Alberti, Odss. 279; Wolf, Cur. 

§ See Vigerus, p. 22, and Hermann thereon, 
p. 706; Kühner, ad Anab. ii. 2. 5. 

eat elle 

10 Vulg. 

11 So also in the classics after participles, 
Xen. Cyr.i. 5.6; Dem. 33. 5, 60. 18. 


PAUL’S ADDRESS ON BOARD. 485 


here, as in xvii. 22, li. 14, something solemn. —airév] not judy; for the 
censure as well as also primarily the encouragement was intended to apply 
to the sailors, — idec pév] it was necessary indeed. This u£v does not stand in 
relation to the following xa/, but the contrast—possibly : but it has not been 
done—is suppressed.’ Bengel well remarks: ‘kat modestiam habet.’’ — 
kepdgoat x.t.2.] and to have spared us this insolence” and the loss suffered. 
tavtyv points to the whole present position of danger in which the ifpxc, 
wherewith the warnings of the apostle were despised and the voyage vent- 
ured, presented itself in a way to be keenly felt as such. xepdaivew, of that 
gain, which is made by omission or avoidance.* The evil in question is con- 
ceived as the object, the non-occurrence of which goes to the benefit of the 
person acting, as the negative object of gain. Analogous to this is the 
Latin lucrifacere, see Grotius.* — aroßoAy yap wuyie x.7.A.| for there shall be 
no loss of a soul from the midst of you, except loss of the ship, i.e. no loss of 
life, but only the loss of the ship. An inaccuracy of expression, which con- 
tinues with 7A7v, as if before there had simply been used the words aroß. 
yap ovd. &oraı.’— To what Paul had said in ver. 10, his present announce- 
ment stands related as a correction. He has now by special revelation 
learned the contrary of what he had then feared, as respected the appre- 
hended loss of life. 

Vv. 23-25. “Ayyedoc] an angel (K*). But naturally those hearers who 
were Gentiles, and not particularly acquainted with Judaism, understood 
this as well as roi Ocov x.r.A. according to their Gentile conception, of a mes- 
senger of the gods, and of one of the gods. — od eiui Eyo, @ Kai arpeiw] to 
whom I belong, as His property, and whom I also, in accordance with this 
belonging, serve.° Paul thus characterizes himself as intimate with God, 
and therewith assures the credibility of his announcement, in which row 
@cov with great emphasis precedes the dyyedoc¢ «.7.A. (see the critical re- 
marks). On éyé (see the critical remarks), in which is expressed a holy 
sense of his personal standing, Bornemann correctly remarks: ‘‘ Pronomen 
Paulum minime dedecet coram gentilibus verba facientem.’’ — keydpiorai cot 
6 Ge6c] God has granted to thee, i.e. He has saved them, according to His 
counsel, for thy sake.’— Here, too,* the appearance, which is to be re- 
garded as a work of God, is not a vision in a dream. The testimony and 
the consciousness of the apostle, who was scarce likely to have slumbered 
and dreamed on that night, are decisive against this view, and particularly 
against the naturalizing explanation of Eichhorn,® Zeller, and Hausrath. 
De Wette takes objection to the mode of expression xeyapiora x.r.4., and is 
inclined to trace it to the high veneration of the reporter; but this is 
unfair, as Paul had simply to wtter what he had heard. And he had heard, 
that for his sake the saving of all was determined. Bengel well remarks: 


1See Kiihner, § 733, note, p. 430; Baeum- Phryn. p. 740 f. 
lein, Partik. p. 163. Comp. on xxviii. 22. 5 Comp. Winer, p. 587 [E. T. 789]. 
2 See on ver. 10. § Comp. Rom. i. 9. 
3 See examples in Bengel, and Kypke, II. 7 See on iii. 14. 
p. 139 f. 8 Comp. on xvi. 10. 
4 On the form kepdjoar, see Lobeck, ad ® Bibl. III. p. 407, 1084. 


486 CHAP. XXVII., 26-34. 


“Non erat tam periculoso alioqui tempore periculum, ne videretur P., que 
necessario dicebat, gloriose dicere.”’ — oürwc ka’ öv rp.] comp. 1. 11. 

Ver. 26. But—dé, leading over to the mode of the promised deliverance— 
we must be cast! on some island. This assurance, made to Paul probably 
through the appearance just narrated, is verified ver. 41 ff. But it is lightly, 
and without reason assigned, conjectured by Zeller that vv. 21-26 contain 
a vaticinium post eventum on the part of the author. 

Vv. 27-29. But after the commencement of the fourteenth night, namely, 
after the departure from Fair Havens,? while we were driven up and down* 
in the Adriatic sea, about midnight, the sailors descried, etc. The article was 
not required before the ordinal number,‘ as a special demonstrative stress® 
is not contemplated, but only the simple statement of time. On wog éreyé- 
vero (see the critical remarks), the night set in.°—é’ Adpiac] here and frequently, 
not in the narrower sense’ of the Golfo di Venetia, but in the wider sense 
of the sea between Italy and Greece, extending southward as far as, and 
inclusive of, Sicily.2—poodyew] that it approaches to them.” The opposite is 
See Smith and the passages in Kuinoel. The conjec- 
ture of the sailors (ürevöovv) had doubtless its foundation in the noise of 
the surf,” such as is usual in the vicinity of land. — On Borilew, to cast the 
sounding lead,'' and on öpyvıd,'” a measure of length of six feet, like our 
fathom. — diacthoavtec| note the active: having made a short interval, i.e. 
having removed the ship a little way farther.’ — dexarvre] With this de- 
crease of depth the danger increased of their falling on reefs,” such as are 
frequent in the vicinity of small islands. —réooapac].*° For the different 
expressions for casting anchor, see Poll. i. 103 (1°). 

Ver. 30. While they were lying here at anchor longing for daylight, 
mbxovro huépav yevécba, ver. 29, the sailors, in order with the proximity of 
land to substitute certainty for uncertainty, make the treacherous attempt 
to escape to land in the boat, which they had already let down under the 
pretence of wishing to cast anchor from the prow of the ship, and thus to 
leave the vessel together with the rest of those on board to their fate. Cer- 
tainly the captain of the vessel,!’ whose interest was too much bound up 
with the preservation of the ship, was not implicated in this plot of his 
servants ; but how easily are the bonds of fidelity and duty relaxed in 


avayopeiv, recedere. 


1 éxmececv, See on Ver. 17. 
2 Comp. vv. 18, 19. 


notus.’’ Horat. Od. i. 3. 15. 
9 “*Tucas optice loquitur nautarum more,’ 
3 S.adep., see the passages in Wetsteinand Kypke. See Cic. Quaest. acad. iv. 25. 
Kypke, II. p. 141, and Philo, de migr. Abr. p. 10 Smith. 
410 E. 11 BoAis, in Herodotus karareıparmpia. See 
4 Poppo, ad Thue. ii. 70. 5. the passages from Eustathius in Wetstein. 
5 Ameis on Hom. Od. xiv. 241. 12 Concerning the accent, Göttling, p. 138. 
6 Comp. Herod. viii. 70; Thuc. iv. 25; 13 See Herod. ii. 169; Beckh, meirol. Un- 
Polyb. i. 11. 15, ii. 25. 5. ters. p. 210 ff. 
7 Plin. iii. 16. 20. 14Comp. Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 41 [E. 


8 Comp. Scherzer, statistisch commercielle 
Ergebnisse, p. 51: “ During the European win- 
ter a sailing vessel may be often forced to lose 
fourteen days or more by a persistent south- 
east wind in the Adriatic Gulf.” See For- 
biger, Geogr. II. p. 16 ff. ‘‘ Hadriae arbiter 


T. 47]. 

15 kata Tpayxeis TOTOUS. 

16 Comp. Caes. Bell. civ. i. 25: “‘ Naves qua- 
ternis ancoris destinabat, ne fluctibus move- 
rentur.”’ 

17 The vavkAnpos, ver. 11. 


FEARS AND HOPES. 48% 


vulgar minds when placed in circumstances of perilous uncertainty, if at 
the expense of these bonds a safe deliverance may be obtained !— rpogdcer 
ÖC . . . pedddvtwv] The genitive is absolute, subordinate to the preceding 
yadac., and mpodaoeı! is adverbial,” as in classical writers the accusative 
mpödacıv more commonly occurs.* Hence: on pretence as though they would, 
etc. — irreivew] eatendere.t They affected and pretended that by means of 
the boat they were desirous to reach out anchors® from the prow, from 
which these anchors hung, ° into the sea, in order that the vessel might be 
secured not only behind,’ but also before. Incorrectly Laurent renders : ‘‘ to 
cast out the anchors farther into the sea.’ Against this, it is decisively 
urged that ayxipac is anarthrous, and that é« tpépa¢ stands in contrast to &x 
mpbuvns, ver. 29. 

Vv. 31, 32. Paul applied not first to the captain of the vessel, but at once 
to the soldiers, because they could take immediately vigorous measures, as 
the danger of the moment required ; and the energetic and decided word 
of the apostle availed. —oira . . . turic] Correlates. Paul, however, does 
not say jueic, but appeals to the direct personal interest of those addressed. 
— owljvat ov divacbe] spoken in the consciousness of the divine counsel, in 
so far as the latter must have the fulfilment of duty by the sailors as the 
human means of its realization (M*). — éxzeceiv] to fall out. We are to 
think on the boat let down into the sea,* yet hanging with its fastened end 
to the ship—when the soldiers cut the ropes asunder. 

Ver. 33. But now, when he had overcome this danger, it was the care of 
the prudent rescuer, before anything further, to see those on board strength- 
ened for the new work of the new day by food. But until it should become 
day,—so long, therefore, as the darkness of the night up to the first break 
of dawn did not allow any ascertaining of their position or further work,— 
in this interval he exhorted all, etc. —teccapeck. of. juépav K.T.2.] waiting, 
for deliverance, the fourteenth day to-day, since the departure from Fair 
Havens, ye continue without food. äcıroı holds with dıarer. the place of a 
participle.® — und&v mpooraß.] since ye have taken to you (adhibuistis) nothing, 
no food. This emphatically strengthens the äoıro.. That, however, the 
two terms are not to be understood of complete abstinence from food, but 
relatively, is self-evident ; Paul expresses the ‘‘ insolitam cibi abstinentiam’’ !° 
earnestly and forcibly.” 

Ver. 34. Ilpöc tH¢ ier. owr.] on the side of your deliverance, e salute vestra, 
i.e. corresponding, conducing to your deliverance.'2 Observe the emphatic 
iperépac ; your benefit I have in view. — oidevdc yap x.r.A.] assigns the reason 


1Comp. Luke xx. 47; Thue. v. 53. 1, vi. ® See the passages in Winer, p. 326 [E. T. 
2 Bernhardy, p. 130. (76. 1. 437] ; Krüger on Thue. i. 34. 2, and Kühner, 
3 Dory. ad Charit. p. 319; Krüger on Thuc. ad Xen. Mem. i. 6. 2. 

iii. 111.1, on os, comp. on 1 Cor. iv. 18, and 10 Calvin. 

see Xen. Anad. i. 2. 1. 11 Comp. moAA7s, ver. 21. 
4Vulg. 12 Comp. Thue. iii. 59. 1, v. 105. 35 Plat. 
5 ** Rune eo usque prolato,” Grotius. Gorg. p. 459 C; Arr. An. vii. 16.9. See on, 
6 Pind. Pyth. iv. 342, x. 80. : this use of zpés with the genitive (only found, 
7 Ver. 29. ; here in the N. T.), Bernhardy, p. 264; Winer, 


8 Ver. 30. p. 350 [E. T. 467 f.]. 


488 CHAP, XXVII., 35-40. 


for the previous mpöc r. üner£p. cwrypiac. For your deliverance, I say, for, 
etc. In this case their own exertions and the bodily strengthening neces- 
sary for this purpose are conceived as conditioning the issue. — On the 
proverbial expression itself, which denotes their being kept utterly exempt from 
harm, comp. Luke xxi. 18; 1 Sam. xiv. 45; 2 Sam. xiv. 11; 1 Kings i. 52. 

Vv. 35, 36. Like the father of a family* among those at table, not, as 
Olshausen and Ewald suppose, notwithstanding that most of the persons 
were heathens, regarding the meal as a Christian love-feast, Paul now, by 
way of formal and pious commencement of the meal, uttered the thanks- 
giving-prayer—for the disposition towards, and relative understanding of, 
which even the Gentiles present were in this situation susceptible—over 
the bread,? broke it, and commenced to eat (jjpEaro éofiew). And all of them, 
encouraged by his word and example, on their part followed. — mpooeAäß. 
rpodns] partook of food.? It is otherwise in ver. 33, with accusative. 

Ver. 37. And what a large meal was thus brought about !— The number 
276 may surprise us on account of its largeness ;* but, apart from the fact 
that we have no knowledge of the size and manning of the Alexandrian 
ship, ver. 6, it must, considering the exactness of the entire narrative, be 
assumed as correct ; and for the omission of dvaxéova the single evidence of 
B, which has öc, is too weak. 

Ver. 38. Now, seeing that for some time, and in quite a brief period 
must the fate of those on board be decided, further victuals were unneces- 
sary—now they ventured on the last means of lightening the ship, which, 
with the decreasing depth,* was urgently required for the purpose of driv- 
ing it on to the land, and cast the provisions overboard, which, considering 
the multitude of men and the previous aoırla, was certainly still a con- 
siderable weight. Chrysostom aptly remarks: ottw Aoımov 75 Trav Eppubav 
Emil tov TlavAov, Sc kat tov oirov éxBareiv. Ziros may denote either corn, or 
also, as here and often with Greek writers, provisions particularly prepared 
from corn, meal, bread, etc. Others® have explained it as the corn with 
which, namely, the ship had been freighted. But against this it may be 
urged, first, that this ‚freighting is not indicated ; secondly, that xopeo@. dé 
rpodjc corresponds to the throwing out of the provisions, and not of the 
Sreight ; and thirdly, that the throwing out of the freight had already taken 
place,? as this indeed was most natural, because the freight was the 
heaviest. 

Ver. 39. Tyv yijv ov‘ éxeyivwor.] i.e. when it became day, they recognised 
not what land it was; the land lying before them (rj yjv) was one un- 
known to them. — köArov dé twa Katevdovv Exovra alyıalöv] Thus Luke writes 
quite faithfully and simply, I might say naively, what presented itself to 
the scrutinizing gaze of those on board : but they perceived a bay which had 
a beach. A bay and a beach belonging to it—so much they saw at tne un- 
known land, and this sufficed for the resolution to land there, where it was 


1 Comp. Luke xxiv. 39. [vi. 11. 5 Ver. 28. 
2 Matt. xiv. 19, xv. 36; Mark viii. 6; John 6 Erasmus, Luther, Beza, et al., including 
3 Comp. Herod. vili. 90. Baumgarten, Smith, Hackett. 


4 See Bornemann in loc. 7 Ver. 18. 


SHIPWRECK. 489 


possible. Observe that aiyrarde is a flat ae) ‘thus suitable for landing, in 
distinction from the high and rugged d«77.2 Hence it is not even neces- 
sary, and is less simple, to connect, with Winer, eic öv «.7.2. as modal defi- 
nition of aiy:ad. closely with the latter: ‘‘a shore of such a nature, that,” 
etc. — eig bv] applies to alyıad. See ver. 40. For examples of é£w6eir, used 
of the thrusting a ship from the open sea on to the land, navem ejicere, 
expellere, see Wetstein. On St. Paul’s Bay, see the description and chart 
of Smith. 

Ver. 40. A vivid description of the stirring activity now put forth in 
making every effort to reach the shore. 1. They cut the four anchors 
round about (mepıeAövrec), and let them fall into the sea, in order neither to 
lose time nor to burden the ship with their weight. 2. At the same time 
they loosened the bands, with which they fastened the rudders to the ship 
in order to secure them while the ship lay at anchor from the violence of 
the waves, for the purpose of now using them in moving on. 38, They 
spread the top-sail before the wind, and thus 1ook their course (Kaze yor) 
for the beach (cig tov aiysaddv). — eiwv] is to be referred to the dyxépac, 
which they let go by cutting, so that they fell into the sea. Arbitrarily, 
following the Vulgate (committebant se), Luther, Beza, Grotius take it as 
 eiov TO mAoiov tévat eig nv Baraccav.”’— That trav rydaAiov is not to be taken 
for the singular, but that larger ships had two rudders,* managed by one 
steersman.* — 6 apréuwv] not elsewhere occurring in Greek writers as part 
of a ship, is most probably explained of the top-gallant-sail placed high on 
the mast.° Labeo points to this view: ‘‘Malum navis esse partem, arte- 
monem autem non esse, Labeo ait,'’° in which words he objects to the con- 
founding of the artemon with the mast : the mast constituted an integral 
part of the ship, but the artemon did not, because it was fastened to the 
mast. Luther’s translation: ‘‘mast,’? is therefore certainly incorrect. 
Grotius, Heumann, Rosenmiiller, and others, including Smith, explain it 
of ‘the small sail at the prow of the ship.’’ In this they assume that the 
mast had already been lowered ; but this is entirely arbitrary, as Luke, 
although he relates every particular so expressly, has never mentioned this.® 
Besides, we cannot see why this sail should not have been called by its 
technical name dédov.° Hadrianus, Junius, Alberti, Wolf, and de Wette 
understand the mizzen-sail at the stern, which indeed bears that name in 
the present day,!° but for this éridpouoc," is well known to be the old tech- 
nical name. — 77 rveobcy] sc. aipa, has raised itself quite to the position of 
a substantive. The dative indicates the reference; they hoisted up the 


1 Matt. xiii. 2; and see Nägelsbach on the 
liad, p. 254, ed. 3. 

2See Hom. Od. v. 405, x. 89; Pind. Pyth. 
iv. 64; Lucian, Zow. 4. 

3 Aelian, V. H.ix. 40. _ 

4 See Smith, p. 9, also Scheffer, de milit. nav. 
ii.5; Boeckh, Urkunden, p. 125. 

B Bee especially Scheffer, de milit. nav. ii. 53 
Forcellini, Thes. I. p. 231. 

§ In Jabolen. Dig. lib. 1. tit. 16, leg. 242. 


7 Segelbaum. 

8 Comp. on ver. 17. 

® Polyb. xvi. 15.2; Diod. xx. 61; Pollux, 
1.91; Liv. xxxvi. 44, xxxvii. 30; Isidor. Orig. 
xix. 3; Procop. Bell. Vandal. i. 1%. 

10 Italian, Artimone; French, voile d’arti- 
mon ; see Baysius, de re nav. p. 121. 

11 Pollux i. 91. 

12 See examples in Bos, Z7., ed. Schaefer, 
pp. 82, 40. 


490 CHAP, XXVII., 41-44. 


sail for the breeze, so that the wind now swelled it from behind. For exam- 
ples of &raipew, for hoisting up and thereby expanding the sail, and for 
xaréyew to steer towards, see Kypke, II. p. 144. 

Ver. 41. But when they had struck upon a promontory.’ — It is altogether 
arbitrary to abandon the literal import of d.fé2accoc, forming two seas, or 
having the sea on both sides, bimaris,” and to understand by römos dıdar. a 
sandbank or a reef, situated after the manner of an island before the 
entrance of the bay. This view is supposed to be necessary on account of 
ver. 43 f., and it is asked: ‘‘quorsum enim isti in mare se projicerent, si 
in ipsum litus navis impegerat prora?’’* But the promontory, as is very fre- 
quently the case, jutted out with its point under the surface of the water, 
and was covered to so great an extent by the sea, that the ship stranding 
on the point was yet separated from the projecting dry part of the isthmus 
by a considerable surface of water ; hence those stranded could only reach 
the dry land by swimming. Even in Dio Chrys. v. p. 83, by which the 
signification of reef is sought to be made good, because there rpayéa x. dıda- 
Aatta x. ramviaı (sandbanks) are placed together, d:#aA. is not to be taken 
otherwise than röroc 104%. here. — Eröreıhav] éxoxéAXew may be either tran- 
sitive: to thrust the ship on, to cause it to strand,* or intransitive: to 
strand, to be wrecked.® As rv vaiv is here added, which in the intransitive 
view would be the accusative of more precise definition, but quite super- 
fluous, the transitive view is that suggested by the text: they thrust the 
ship upon, they made it strand. Lachmann and Tischendorf, following 
A B* C, have éréxe:Aav, from éruxéd2w, to push to the land, navem appellere. 
But neither does this meaning suit, as here it is the ship going to wreck that 
is spoken of ; nor can proof be adduced from the aorist form é7éxe:Aa.® — 
épeicaca] having fixed itself. On £psidew, used also by the Greeks in an 
intransitive sense, comp. Prov. iv. 4. — 4 dé mpiuva éAbeto «.r.A.] for the 
promontory had naturally the deeper water above it the farther it ran 
seawards, so that the stern was shattered by the power of the waves. This 
shipwreck was at least the fourth” which Paul suffered. 

Vv. 42-44. Now, when the loss of the ship was just as certain, as with 
the proximity of the land the escape of those prisoners who could swim 
was easily possible, the soldiers were of a mind to kill them; but the cen- 
turion was too much attached to Paul to permit it.° Not sharing in the 
apprehension of his soldiers, he commanded that all in the ship who knew 
how to swim should swim to land, and then the rest, to whom in this way 
assistance was ready on shore, were to follow partly on planks and partly 
on broken pieces of the ship. — fovdy éyévero, iva] there took place a project, 
in the design, that, etc. ; comp. on ver. 1, and see Niigelsb. on the Iliad, p. 


1 As to mepim., comp. on Luke x. 30. see Bornemann. In Polyb. iv. 31. 2, &mıreAXorv- 
2 See the passages in Wetstein. res has been introduced by copyists’ mistake 
3 Calovius; compare Kuinoel. 72 Cor. xi. 25. [for EroreAAorvres. 
4 Herod. vi. 16, vii. 182; Thuc. iv. 26. 5. 8 In this remark, ver 43, Zeller conjectures 
5So Thuc. viii. 102.3; Polyb. i. 20. 15, iv. very arbitrarily a later addition to the original 
41. 2, and see Loesner, p. 240. narrative, which was designed to illustrate the 


® Hom. Od. ix. 138, 148, vili. 114: éméxeAca, influence of the apostle upon the Roman. 


ALL ON BOARD SAVED. 491 


62, ed. 3, who on such modes of expression appropriately remarks that 
the ‘‘ willis conceived as a striving will.’ — amoppirre, to cast down, intran- 
sitive, in the sense of se projieere.! — kai rovg Aormovg] sc. &£ıevar (e mari) éxi 
THY yijv. — éri caviow| on planks, which were at hand in the ship. — &ri rıyav 
TOV ano Tov Thoiov| on something from the ship, on pieces which had partly 
broken loose from it by the stranding, so forming wreck (vavayıov, Epeirıov), 
and were partly torn off by the people themselves for that purpose. &mi 
denotes both times the local being upon, and the change between dative and 
genitive is to be regarded as merely accidental.? — In the history of this final 
rescue, Baumgarten, II. p. 420, has carried to an extreme the arbitrariness 
of allegorico-spiritual fiction. 


Remark 1.— The extraordinarily exact minuteness and vividness in the nar- 
rative of this whole voyage justifies the hypothesis that Luke, immediately 
after its close, during the winter spent in Malta, wrote down this interesting 
description in the main from fresh recollection, and possibly following notes 
which he had made for himself even during the voyage — perhaps set down in 
his diary, and at a later period transferred from it to his history. 

Remark 2.—The transition from the first person —in which he narrates as a 
companion sharing the voyage and its fortunes—into the third is not to be con- 
sidered as an accident or an inconsistency, but is founded on the nature of the 
contents, according to which the sailors specially come into prominence as 
subject. See vy. 13, 17, 18, and 19, 21, 29, 38-41. 

Remark 3. If the assumption of the school of Baur as to the set purpose 
animating the author of the Acts were correct, this narrative of the voyage, 
with all its collateral circumstances in such detail, would be a meaningless bal- 
last of the book. But it justifies itself in the purely historical destination of 
the work, and confirms that destination. 


Notes BY AMERICAN EDITOR. 


(6?) And he put us therein. V. 6. 


In no ancient literature have we, in so small a compass, such a minute de- 
scription of a voyage and shipwreck as is contained in this chapter of the Acts, 
and the account abounds in nautical phrases and words. To account for the 
great minuteness of detail with which the voyage is described it has been sup- 
posed that Luke kept a diary during the voyage and used it in his history. 
The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul, by James Smith, Esq., of Jordan Hill, a 
work of European reputation, gives a full explanation and illustration of the 
entire voyage. “ Mr. Smith has applied his nautical knowledge to the elucida- 
tion of this chapter, and by so doing has furnished us with a new and inde- 
pendent argument in favor of the authenticity of the Acts.” 

Hackett is also particularly full and minute on this and the following chap- 
ter. The Greek words éve3iBacev jude eig aurö, rendered put us therein, is a nauti- 


1 See Schaefer, ad Bos Eıl. p. 127. 
2 See Bernhardy, p. 200 f.: Kühner, § 624, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1. 20. 


492 CHAP. XXVII.—NOTES. 


cal phrase, and means put us on board of it. -Hackett remarks : ‘‘ It will be ob- 
served that Luke employs such terms with great frequency, and with singular 
precision. He uses, for example, not less than thirteen different verbs which 
agree in this, that they mark in some way the progression of the ship, but 
which differ, inasmuch as they indicate its distance from the land, rate of 
movement, direction of the wind, or some such circumstance. With the ex- 
ception of three of them, they are all nautical expressions.”’ Doubtless the 
writer learned the use of such terms from the sailors themselves. 


(mt) Fair Havens. Y. 8. 


On this harbor-Alford writes : ‘‘ The situation of this anchorage was ascer- 
tained by Pococke from the fact of the name still remaining.’’ ‘‘ In searching 
after Lehena farther to the west, I found out a place which I thought to be of 
greater consequence because mentioned in Holy Scripture and also honored by 
the presence of St. Paul, that is the Fair Havens, near unto the city of Lasea ; 
for there is a small bay about two leagues to the east of Matala, which is now 
called by the Greeks good, or fair, havens.’’ Mr. Smith in quoting this pas- 
sage adds : ‘‘ The most conclusive evidence that this is the Fair Havens of 
Scripture is that its position is precisely that where a ship, circumstanced as 
St. Paul’s was, must have put in.” 

Hackett observes : “ This harbor consists of an open roadstead, or rather two 
roadsteads contiguous to each other, which may account for the plural desig- 
nation. It is adapted also by its situation to afford the shelter in north-west 
winds, which the anchorage mentioned by Luke afforded to Paul’s vessel. 
Nautical authorities assure us that this place is the farthest point to which an 
ancient ship could have attained with north-westerly winds, because here the 
land turns suddenly to the north.” Gloag says that Rev. G. Brown iden- 
tified the exact situation of Lasea, in the year 1856. He ascertained that the 
natives of Crete gave the name of Lasea to some ruins on the coast about five 
miles east of Fair Havens. Two white pillars and other remains still mark the 
spot. 


(1) Toward the north-west and south-west. V. 12. 


On this phrase which he renders, Jooking down the south-west and north- 
west winds, i.e., in the direction of these winds, viz., north-east and south-east, 
Alford writes : *‘ For Aiy and yapoc are not quarters of the compass, but winds ; 
and «ard, used with a wind, denotes the direction of its blowing—‘ down the 
wind.’ "This interpretation, which I was long ago persuaded was the right one, 
I find now confirmed by the opinion of Mr, Smith.” Hackettin a note says : ‘‘ As 
this question has excited some interest, it may be well to mention how it is 
viewed in works published since 1850. Humphrey (1854) says that Mr. Smith’s 
passages are not quite conclusive as to BAérovta kata Aida. He supposes Phee- 
nix to be the modern Phineka which opens to the west, and thus adopts the 
common explanation of the phrase. Alford (1852), agrees with Smith. [And he 
adds to his note on verse 12, this statement : “ See Professor Hackett’s note, 
impugning the above view and interpretation. I cannot observe on it, as it 
has only come to hand as these sheets are being printed, but it does not alter 


NOTES. 493 


my opinion.’’—Am. Ed.] Howson would admit an instance of thet usage in 
Josephus, but says the other alleged proofs are untenable or ambiguous. He 
mediates between the two opinions by suggesting that the point of view 
(3rerovra) is from the sea and not the land, so that cara Aisa would have its 

‘usual meaning, and yet the harbor open toward the east like Lutro. Words- 
worth has a copious note on this question. He reviews the arguments on both 
sides, and sums up with the result that we should not abandon the ancient in- 
terpretation, or at all events should suspend our decision till we have more 
complete topographical details for forming it. Gloag says : ‘‘ There is a differ- 
ence of opinion regarding the exact situation of the ancient Phoenix. Lutro, 
Sphakia, and Franco Castello, places on the south coast of Crete, to the west 
of Cape Matala, have each been fixed upon. Most modern commentators are 
now agreed that the modern part of Lutro is meant.”’ 

He adds that Spratt informs us that a wide bay, a little to the west of it, is 
still known by the name of Phoenix, and says: “ Most probably it is this bay 
to the west which is meant, as the haven of Lutro is open to the east, and 
therefore does not suit the description of it given by Luke, as looking toward 
the south-west and north-west, whereas the bay of Phoenice does, being open to 
the west.” Ina note he adds further : “‘ This view, that Phenix is not Lutro, 
but the adjoining bay to the west, is also adopted by Humphrey and by Bishop 
Wordsworth.” 


(34) Euroclydon. V. 14. 


Gloag remarks on this word : “‘ Alford thinks that it is a corruption by the 
Greek sailors of eipaxt2wv, as the last part of that word was not Greek, but Latin. 
The addition 6 kaAovuevoc denotes that it was a popular name given to the wind 
by the sailors, just as a similar wind in the Mediterranean is now known to 
our seamen by the name of the Levanter.” Hackett thinks the name of the 
wind denotes the point from which it came, and should probably be written 
eüparvAwv, Euroaquilo, as in the Vulgate, a north-east wind, and says the in- 
ternal evidence favors that form of the word. In this opinion Alexander, Jacob- 
son, Jacobus, and Plumptre substantially concur. The Revised Version gives the 
name Euraquilo, which Abbot and Taylor also approves. In popular language 
it was a north-easterly gale. Schaff says: ‘‘ We here naturally think of the 
beautiful stanza of the Greek hymn of Anatolius containing the word Euroc- 
lydon. 


“+ Ridge of the mountain wave, lower thy crest ip 
Wail of Euroclydon, be thon at rest ! 
Sorrow can never be, darkness must fly, 
Where saith the Light of light, Peace! ItisI!’” 


(x) The angel of God. V. 23: 


The literal rendering is, as in the Revised Version, an angel of the God, 
whose lam. The ministry of angels is frequently referred to in the Acts. 

This form of expression is natural in addressing idolaters, to whom the idea 
of an angel was familiar, as a messenger from the gods, but who had no idea of 
the one living and true God. This vision was to Paul a source of strength and 
presence of mind, which he was able in some degree to impress on others. 


494 CHAP. XXVII.—NOTES. 


Stier says : “ How beautiful is the quiet certainty of the apostle amid the 
dangers of the raging sea. Jam od’s is the loftiest and inmost confidence of 
piety ; I serve him is the consequent appeal to the vitality of his worship.” 
Howson characterizes this statement of the apostle as ‘‘ one of the noblest ut- 
terances that ever came from the lips of man, and made more remarkable by 
the circumstances under which the words were uttered.” 


(14) They cast four anchors out of the stern. V. 29. 


Some suppose that the four anchors here mentioned wasa four-fluked anchor ; 
but large vessels often carried several anchors. Athenzus mentions a ship that 
had eight iron anchors, and the quotation from Cesar by Meyer refers to ships 
made fast by four anchors. In general the ancients, like the moderns, an- 
chored from the bow. The reason why anchors in the present instance were 
cast from the stern was that in that way the progress of the ship would at 
once be stopped without swinging round. ‘‘ In the battles of the Nile and of 
Copenhagen, Nelson had his ships anchored from the stern, and the fact de- 
rives peculiar interest from the statement that he had been reading Acts xxvii. 
on the morning of the engagement.” (Plumptre.) 

Having cast out the anchors they wished for day. These words vividly por- 
tray the straw cf hope and fear which made them almost cry: ‘‘ And if our 
fate be death, give light and let us die.” 


(m?) Eixcept these abide, ye cannot be saved. VY. 31. 


Notwithstanding the divine assurance to Paul, means were necessary, and 
these were ordained as well asthe end. Paul’s vigilance and the seamen’s skill 
and labor were required to effect the divine purpose. Mier says: ‘We see, 
therefore, that God’s promises are conditional ; in this case, the use of ordinary 
means anda faithful perseverance in duty to the very last were both requisite.’’ 

Calvin on this verse writes: “ Paul doth not dispute, in this place, precisely 
of the power of God, that he may separate the same from his will and from 
means ; and surely God doth not, therefore, commend his (strength or) power 
(virtutem suam) to the faithful, that they may give themselves to sluggishness 
and carelessness, contemning means orrashly cast away themselves when there 
is some certain way of escape. And yet for all this it doth not follow that the 
hand of God is tied to means or helps, but when God appointeth this or that 
means to bring anything to pass, he holdeth all men’s senses that they may 
not pass the bounds which he hath appointed.” 

Dr. Chalmers, in a sermon on Acts xxvii. 22 and 31, says: ‘‘ There is no incon- 
sistency between these verses. God says in one of them, by the mouth of 
Paul, that these men were certainly to be saved, and Paulsays in the other of 
these verses that unless the centurion and others were to do so and so, they 
should not be saved. In one of the verses, it is made to be the certain and 
unfailing appointment of God. In the other it is made to depend on the cen- 
turion. There is no difficulty in all this, if you would just consider that God, 
who made the end certain, made the means certain also. Itis true that the 
end was certain to happen, and it is as true that the end would not happen 
without the means, but God secured the happening of both, and so gives sure- 


NOTES. 495 


ness and consistency to the passage before us.” He also says: “ There must 
be a sad deal of evasion and of unfair handling with particular passages to 
get free of the evidence which we find for the doctrine of predestination in 
the Bible. And independently of Scripture altogether, the denial of this doe- 
trine brings a number of monstrous conceptions along with it. It supposes 
God to make a world, and not to reserve in his own hand the management of 
its concerns. Though it should concede to him an absolute sovereignty over 
all matter, 1t deposes him from his sovereignty over the region of created 
minds, that far more dignified and interesting portion of his works. The 
greatest events of the history of the universe are those which are brought about 
by the agency of willing and intelligent beings, and the enemies of the doc- 
trine invest every one of these beings with some sovereign and independent 
principle of freedom, in virtue of which it may be asserted of this whole class 
of events, that they happened, not because they were ordained of God, but 
because the creatures of God, by their own uncontrolled power, brought them 
into existence. At this rate, even He to whom we give the attribute of omnis- 
cience is not able to say at this moment what shall be the fortune or the fate of 
any individual, and the whole train of future history is left to the wildness of 
accident. All this carries along with it so complete a dethronement of God, it 
is bringing his creation under the dominion of so many nameless and undeter- 
minable contingencies, it is taking the world and the current of its history so 
entirely out of the hands of him who formed it, it is withal so opposite to 
what obtains in every other field of observation, when instead of the lawless- 
ness of chance, we shall find that the more we attend the more we perceive of a 
certain necessary and established order, that from these and other considera- 
tions which might be stated the doctrine in question, in addition to the testi- 
monies which we find for it in the Bible, is at this moment receiving a very 
general support from the speculations of infidel as well as Christian philoso- 
phers.’”’ 


496 CRITICAL REMARKS, 


CHAPTER XXVIII. 


Ver. 1. éxéyvwoav] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read éxéyvwuev, according to ABC 
S, min, and most vss. Rightly ; the third person was introduced with a ret- 
rospective view to xxvii. 39, through the connection with the concluding 
words of xxvii. 44. — Ver. 2. avdwavrec] Lachm. Born. read dwarrec, according 
to A BCS, min. But AN was liable to omission even in itself, and especially. 
through the preceding N. — Ver. 3. é«] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read dé, which is 
decidedly attested, and therefore to be adopted. — dvefe/40ica] So Tisch. Born. 
Scholz, according to A G H, min. Chrys. Theophyl. But Elz. and Lachm. have 
é€eAMoica. The double compound was the more easily neglected as it was not 
elsewhere known from the N. T.-- Ver. 5. drorivafac] arorıvafauevos, although 
adopted by Scholz and Tisch., is not sufficiently attested by A G H, min. — Ver. 
10. 7)v xpeiav] Lachm. Tisch. Born. have rüc ypeiac, according to A B J NS, min, 
A gloss on Ta mpd¢ tiv xpelav, after xx. 34. — Ver. 14. &m’ adroic] Lachm. and 
Born., following A BJ S, min., read zap’ airoic, which was introduced as ex- 
planatory. — Ver. 16. 6 &karovrapyoc . . . orparomedapyn] is wanting (so that the 
passage continues : éretpdvy ro I.) in A B 8 lot 40, Chrys. and most vss. Con- 
demned by Mill, Bengel, and other, suspected by Griesb., and deleted by Lachm. 
and Tisch. Defended especially by Born. in Rosenm. Repert. Il. p. 301 f. The 
words, attested by G H and most min. Ar. p. Slav. Theophyl. Oec., have cer- 
tainly the suspicion of being an expansion. Yet in opposition to their rejec- 
tion we may urge, first, that there are no variations in detail, as is the general 
rule with interpolations ; secondly, that the writer of a gloss, instead of ra 
orparored., would probably have written the more readily occurring plural; and 
thirdly, that in transcribing one might very easily pass from éxarovrAPXOS 
directly to orparoweSAPXH, which corruption would then produce the form of 
Lachmann’s text. — Ver. 17. airév] Elz. has rév IlaöXov, against AB SS, min. 
Chrys. and several vss. The name came in, because in ver. 17 a separate new 
act of the history commences ; therefore also Chrys. has once, and indeed at 
the beginning of a homily, r. Ilai2. — Ver. 19. karnyopjoaı) A B S, min. have 
karnyopeiv, which Lachm. Tisch. and Born. have adopted. Rightly : catyyopjoac 
is a mechanical alteration, in conformity with ärıral&saodaı. — Ver. 23. 7kov] A 
B NS, min. have 7A90v. Recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. The 
extremely common word has been involuntarily substituted for the classical 
imperfect 7xov, not elsewhere occurring in the N. T. — ra repi] Lachm. Tisch, 
Born. have only zep/, following AB H NS, min. vss. Comp. on viii. 12, xix. 8. — 
Ver. 25. 7uov] AB N, min. vss. Fathers have öuöv, which Lachm. and Tisch. 
have adopted. The Recepta is justly supported by Born. The tone and con- 
tents of the speech, conveying censure and rejection, involuntarily suggested 
the second person to the transcribers. Comp. vii. 51 f. — Ver. 27. idowuar] A B 
G HS, min. Theophyl. have iäoouaı, recommended by Griesb. and adopted by 
Tisch. Rightly ; see on John xii. 40. — Ver. 28. rö cwr7p.] Lachm. Tisch. Born. 
read roüro Tö owrnp., according to A B X*, min. Chrys. and several vss. The 


PAUL AT MALTA. 497 


omission of rojro, which has no express reference in the text, is quite in keep- 
ing with the inattention of transcribers. — Ver. 29 is entirely wantinginABE 
NS, lot! 13, 40, 68, Lect. 1, Syr. Erp. Copt. Vulg.ms. In the Syr. p. it is marked 
as suspected by an asterisk. Condemned by Mill and others, deleted by Lachm, 
and Tisch. Very suspicious as an interpolated conclusion of the whole trans- 
action (according to ver. 25). Yet it is saved from complete rejection by the 
fact, that here also in detail there are only found very immaterial variations. — 
Ver. 30. After éuevve de, instead of which there is to be read, with Tisch., ac- 
cording to B S, lot 13, evéwerver de, Elz. has o IlavAoc, against witnesses of very 
considerable importance. See on ver. 17. 


V. 1. Tore] then, after our rescue, we recognised ; looks back to xxvii. 39. 
— That by Mediry is to be understood the well-known Malta! (s*), and not 
—as some of the older commentators? would infer partly from év r@’ Adpia, 
xxvii. 27, partly from ßapßapoı, ver. 2, and partly from the observed fact, 
which, though true in the present day, cannot at all be made good for 
those times, that there are no venomous serpents in Malta—the island now 
called Meleda in the Adriatic Gulf, not far from the Illyrian coast,* is 
proved as well by the previous long tossing about of the ship, which was 
hardly possible with a continued storm in the Adriatic Gulf, as more es- 
pecially by the direction of the further voyage.* The local tradition, also, 
in Malta, is in favour of it.° In the Act. Petri et Pauli 1, the island is 
called Tavdouedéry. 

Ver. 2. Bapßapoı] from a Roman point of view, because they were neither 
Greeks nor Romans, but of Punic descent, and therefore spoke a mixed 
dialect, neither Greek nor Latin. It was not till the second Punic war 
that Malta came under the dominion of the Romans.® — ov r. ruyoücav] See 
on xix. 11.—poceAa3.] they took us to themselves.” — dia r. veröv Tr. épect. ] 
on account of the rain which had set in.® — wüxoc] thus to be accented, al- 
though in opposition to a preponderance of codd.,° not wi yor. 

Ver. 3. ’Amo r. Oépu.| (see the critical remarks) on account of the heat. 
The reading é« would have to be rendered : from out of the heat.— dezeA- 
fovca].'' It denotes that the viper came out from the brushwood in which it 
was, and through the layer of the same which was above it.!* — kaßyıwe tie 
xetpoc avtov] it seized on his hand. The reading kafmbaro, recommended by 
Griesbach, following C, min. Chrysostom, a/., appears to be an emendation. 
That this «ade took place by means of a bite, Luke himself makes sufli- 


ı Diod. Sic. v. 12; Strabo, vi. 2, p. 277; 8 Comp. Polyb. xviii. 3.7: dıa tov ebeotwrta 


Cic. Verr. vi. 46 ; Ovid. Fast. iii. 567 f.: Fertilis 
est Melite, sterili vicina Cosyrae, Insula quam 
Libyci verberat unda freti. 

2 Following Constantin. Porph. d. admin- 
istr. imper. p. 36 (see in Wolf, and in Winer, 
Realw.). 

3 Apoll. Rhod. Avg. iv. 572. 

4 vv. 11, 12. 

5 Beza on xxvil. 41 ; Smith, Vömel, Hackett. 

6 Liv. xxi. 51. 

7 Comp. on Rom. xiv. 1. 


Codov. 

9 See Lipsius, gramm. Unters. p. 44. See 
Hom. Od. x. 555 ; Soph. Phil. 17. 

10 On the late form depuy, instead of Yeppa, 
see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p 331; see Winer, p. 
348 (E. T. 465); Hermann, ad Arist. Nub. 834. 

11 Plat. Pol. iii. p. 405 C; Phaed. p. 109 E; 
Xen. Anab. vi. 6. 38; 2 Sam. ii. 23. 

12 See Bornemann, and Kühner, ad Xen. 
Anab. vi. 6. 38. {ad Aj. 700. 

13 Comp. Arr. pict. ‘iii. 10. 20; Lobeck, 


498 CHAP. XXVIII., 4-6. 


ciently evident in ver. 4 by xpeudnevv . . . Ex tHE xeipöc aiTrov; but it 
follows decidedly, and without rashly leaping to a conclusion, from the 
judgment, from the expectation, and from the subsequent éAeyov Yeöv air. 
eivac of the Melitenses, vv. 4, 6, in all which it is necessarily presupposed 
that they, the near bystanders, had actually seen the bite of the serpent. 
From this at the same time it follows just as certainly, that the animal must 
have been definitely known to the islanders as a poisonous viper. Hence we 
must reject the view of Bochart :! ‘ illigavit se etc., nempe wt . . . mor- 
deret, sed eam cohibuit Deus, sicut, leones illos, Dan. vi. 22,’? and of Kui- 
noel :? ‘‘erat autem vipera ista aut non venenata, etsi Melitenses eam pro 
venenata habuerint, aut si erat, insinuavit quidem se Pauli manui, non vero 
momordit.’ The Jatter, also hinted at by Ewald, follows least of all from 
éxadev ovdév kaxdv, ver. 5, by which the very absence of result, brought 
about by special divine help, is placed in contrast with the poisonous bite. 
Nevertheless, Lange* supposes that the reptile may have hung encircling 
his hand without biting, and Lekebusch, p. 382, that Luke had in view 
the alternative contained in Kuinoel’s explanation. Indeed, according to 
Hausrath, the judgment in ver. 5 is only ascribed to the islanders by Luke. 
They were, as he thinks, aware that there were no poisonous serpents with 
them, and that thus the bite was not dangerous. 

Vv. 4, 5. Ex t7¢ acıp. ait.} from his hand, so that it hung fastened with 
its mouth in the wound.‘ — rävrwuc voveuc tot x.r.A.| he is at all events a 
murderer, etc. From the fact that the stranger, though he had escaped 
from shipwreck, yet had now received this deadly bite, the people inferred 
that it was the work of Aix,, who was now carrying out her sentence, and 
requiting like with like, killing with killing. Perhaps it had been already 
told to them that Paul was a prisoner ; in that case their inference was the 
more natural. The opinion of Elsner, to which Wolf, Kuinoel, and Lange 
accede, that the people might have deduced their inference from the local- 
ity of the supposed bite, according to the idea that punishment overtakes 
the member with which a crime is committed,° is to be rejected for the very 
reason, that in fact from a bite on the hand any other crime committed by 
the hand might quite as well be inferred. — eiaoev] not sinit,® but sivit ; they 
regard the bite as so certainly fatal.—On the goddess Aixy, the avenger of 
crime,’ Justitia, the daughter of Zeus,*and f£bivedpoc or mapedpoc.” How the 
islanders named the goddess to whom Luke gives the Greek name Ai«y, or 
whether perhaps they had received the Greek Aix among their divinities, 
is not to be decided. — On the active arorıvacosı, to shake off, comp. Luke 
Ix. 5; Dam, 1.7. 

Ver.6. But when they waited long, not expectassent, and saw, etc. On ärorov 
of abnormal corporeal changes, see examples in Wetstein and Kypke. Not 


1 Hieroz. ii. 3, p. 369. 7 Hesiod. Cp. 256 ff. 
2 Comp. Heinrichs. 8 Hesiod. Theog. 902. 
3 Apost. Zeitalt. II. p. 344 f. ® Soph. Oed. Col. 1384; Arrian. iv. 9. See 
‘Comp. Kühner, § 622 ce. Mitscherlich, ad Hor. Od. iii. 2. 32; Ellendt, 
5 Spanheim, ad Callim in Cer. 64. Lew Soph. 1. p. 432; Jacobs, ad Anthol. 1X. p. 


6 Vulgate, Luther, and others. 345, 


CURES DISEASES. 499 


even the expected swelling (rıurp.) occurred. — eic auröv yuvdu.| taking place 
on him.! — ueraßarreodaı) to turn themselves round, to change, often used even 
by classical writers to express change of view or opinion, without, however, 
supplying r7v yrounv.? — Beov aurov eivaı] The good-natured people, running 
immediately into extremes with the inferiority of their rational training, 
think that he is a god appearing in human form, because they could not 
reconcile the complete want of result from the poisonous bite of the viper, 
well known to them in its effects, with the knowledge which they had de- 
rived from experience of the constitution of an ordinary human body. 
'YrepBory time worep nal TOV ÖxAwv Tov Ev Avkaovia.” DBengel well remarks 
“aut latro inquiunt aut Deus . . . ; datur tertium ; homo Dei.’? The peo- 
ple themselves do not say (ßeöv) that they meant a definite, particular god.* 
Zeller finds in ver. 6 simply an unhistorical addition “ in the miraculous 
style of our chap. xiv.,’’ which character belongs still more decidedly to 
the cures in vv. 8 and 9. 

Vv. 7-10. The otherwise unknown Publius, the rpéaro¢ ryc vicov, is to be 
considered as the chief magistrate of the island. But this is not so much to 
be proved from the inscription, discovered in Malta, quoted by Grotius and 
Bochart, Geogr. ii. 1. 26— ... IIPOYAHNZ. INNEYS. POM. NPQTOS. 
MEAITAIQN . . .—as it may, both in that inscription and in this passage, 
be justly inferred from the nature of the case itself; for certainly the 
Roman governor, that is, the legate of the praetor of Sicily, to which 
praetorship Malta belonged,® had the jirst rank on the small island. — 
avades. juac| Ver. 10 proves that this #ua¢ applies not to the whole ship’s 
company,° but to Paul, Luke, and Aristarchus.” Certainly the wonderful 
course of things in connection with the bite of the viper had directed the 
interest of the humane man to Paul. And Paul repaid his kindness by the 
restoration of his sick father. — Ver. 8. mvperoic] The plural denotes the 
varying fever fits.° Observe how accurately Luke as a technical eye-wit- 
ness designates the disease. — dvoevrepia] dysentery.° Yet the later neuter 
form dvoevrepiw '" is so strongly attested that it has been rightly adopted 
by Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Bornemann. — Vv. 9, 10. ideparevovro] 
namely, by Paul, ver. 8.'! The conjecture, based on the following jac, 
ver. 10, that Luke as a physician was not unconcerned in these cures,!* is 
not only against the analogy of ver. 8, but altogether against the spirit and 
tendency of the narrative, and indeed of the book. — moMMaic Tinaic Erin. 


1See on Luke iv. 23; comp. Plut. Mor. p. 
786 C: at cis capxa . . ylvomevar Kivygets. 

2 Dem. 205. 19, 349. 25, and see Kypke. 

3 xiv. 11 ff., Chrysostom. 

4 Grotius, Heinsius, Alberti conjecture Her- 
cules adcé&ixaxos; Wetstein, Aesculapius ; 
Sepp, one of the two. 

5 Cic. Verr. iv. 18. 

6 So Baumgarten. 

7 xxxvii. 2. 

8 Dem. 1260. 20 ; Lucian, Philops. 9. 

® Herod. viii. 115; Plat. Tim. p.86; A: see 
Cels. iv. 15. 


10 See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 518. 

11 From the popular representation, ver. 9, 
it is not to beinferred, with Baumgarten, that 
not a single sick person remained uncured in 
the island. This Luke would have known 
how to bring out with corresponding empha- 
sis, especially if he, like Baumgarten, had 
thought on the fulfilment of Ex. xv. 26, and 
had conceived to himself Malta in a fanciful 
manner ascmblematic of the completed king- 
dom of God. 

12 Lekebusch, p. 382. 


500 CHAP. XXVIII., 11-15. 


jnäc K.7.A.] They honoured us with many marks of honour ; and when we set 
sail, were on the point of sailing, they placed on the ship what was neces- 
sary, provisions, and perhaps also money and other requisites for the jour- 
ney. Many expositors render rınaig Eriu., muneribus ornarunt ; but in that 
case, as in Ecclus. xxxviii. 1, the context must undoubtedly have sug- 
gested this special showing of honour, by rewards.' Even in the well- 
known honos habendus medico® the general honos is not to be exclusively 
restricted to the honorarium. In 1 Tim. v. 17 also tio is quite generally 
honoris. While the very command of Christ, Matt. x. 8, is antagonistic to 
the explanation praemiis ornarunt in our passage, the context is also against 
it, which represents the actual aid ® as a proof of gratitude different from 
that quite general roAAaic timaic Erin. Tuac, both in point of substance * and 
in point of time.° — Tradition makes Publius afterwards bishop of Malta.° 
Ver. 11. Mapaciuw Arooxobporc] xapac. is not an adjective, marked with the 
Dioseuri, as the adjective mapaonuos has always a derogatory reference, e.9. 
falsely stumped, stigmatised, ill-famed, etc., but a substantive, so that the 
dative is connected with dvjySnyev : we put to sea. . . with a sign, which 
was the Dioscuri. An image of the Dioscuri was, namely, the ship’s device, 
i.e. the mapaonuov,” the insigne of the ship. This name was given to the 
image of a divinity, of an animal, or of any other selected object, which 
was to be found either painted or sculptured on the prow.*— For such a 
mapdaonuov the image of the Dioscuri was very suitably chosen, as Castor and 
Pollux’ were honoured as the dpwyovaita and generally as protectors in 
dangers.’? On the forms under which they were represented, see Miiller." 
On the modes of writing Avécxovpor and Azdcxopo:, see Lobeck.’? — The men- 
tion of the ship’s sign belongs to the special accuracy of the recollection of 
an eye-witness. According to Baumgarten, Luke designs to intimate 
‘that in' this vessel there did not prevail that former presumptuous 
security, but confidence in a superhuman protection and assistance.’’ So 
much the more arbitrarily invented, as we know not what rapäonuov the 
wrecked ship had. Luke has noticed the sign in the case of the one, and 
not in the other. It is conceivable enough, even without assuming any set 
purpose, that after the surmounted disaster his attention was the more 
alive to such a special feature in the ship in which they now embarked. 
Vy. 12-14. The voyage proceeded in quite a regular course from Malta 
to Syracuse, and from that to Rhegium,' now Reggio, in the Sicilian Straits, 


1 Comp. Xen. Anab. vii. 3. 19. 

2 Cie. ad Div. xvi. 9. 

3 EmedevTo Ta POS T. XpElav. 

+ . Ta Wpos THY Xpeiav, 

5 avayoy.evors. 

® Martyrolog. 21 Jan. 

7 Plut. Mor. p. 162 A, and see Wetstein, or 
ériayov, Herod. viii. 88. 

8 Lucian, Vav.5. See on this, as well as on 
the distinction from the image of the Tutela 
navis at the stern, Ruhnken, de tutel. et ins. 
nav. p. 5, 42; Drackenb, and Ruperti, ad Sil. 


% Tıuais . 


dé. xiv. 84; the interpreters, ad Hor. Od. i. 
14. 14; Stan]. ad Aesch. TI. p. 751. 

%“Fratres Helenae, lucida sidera,” Hor. 
Od. i. 8. 2. 

10 See Wetstein and Lobeck, Aglaoph. p. 
1231 f. 

1t Archäol.$ 414. 

12 Ad Phryn. p. 235; Pflugk, ad Eur Hee. 
943. 

13 Odev mepıeAdövres: from which after we 
had come round, from Syracuse round the 
eastern coast of Sicily. Not: afler we had 


VOYAGE TO ROME. 501 


and then through the Etruscan Sea to Puteoli, now Puzzuolo, near Naples. 
— éniyevouévov Nörov] when thereupon south wind, which favoured the voyage, 
had arisen. — The force of ézi is, in all places where Zmıyiveodaı occurs of 
wind,' not to be overlooked. — devrepaio.] as persons, who were on the 
second day, 2.¢. on the second day.” — ade2.gov¢] Thus Christianity was already 
at that time in Puteoli, whether coming thither from Rome, or perhaps 
from Alexandria ? — Ver. 14. rapexAgSypev Er’ avroig éxiueivar] we were invited 
to remain with them. — in’ avroic] beside them.” Rinck,* as also Ewald, pre- 
fers the reading éxueivavrec, and takes? rapsxa. én’ aitoic together : we were 
refreshed in them; but the participle is much too weakly attested, and 
without doubt has only come into the text through this view of rapexa. — 
Kai ovTus eig T. “Pau. jAd.] and thus, after we had first tarried seven days at 
Puteoli, we came to Rome. épyecda is neither here, in opposition to Beza, 
Grotius, de Dieu, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and many others, nor elsewhere in 
the N. T. ire, not even in John vi. 17, where the imperfect is to be observed ; 
but Luke narrates the arrival at Rome, and then in ver. 15 inserts by way 
of episode something special, which stood in close connection with this 
arrival ; hence he again joins on ver. 16 by öre dé 7AVopev eic 'P. to ver. 14. 
Observe at the same time that in ver. 14 ei¢ r. 'Pou., as the final aim of the 
voyage, but in ver. 16 ;Adouev, has the emphasis. — Moreover, the conces- 
sion of a seven days’ stay, so near to the end of the journey, testifies how 
much Paul possessed the love and confidence of the centurion. The Book 
of Acts, however, gives us no information at all how Christianity was 
planted in the Italian cities and in Rome. 

Ver. 15. Oi adeAgoi] Considering the largeness which we must assume the 
church at Rome to have attained, according to Rom. xvi. 3 ff., probably a 
numerous representation of it is to be conceived as present. — zuiv] appro- 
priating dative of the pronoun.® — äypıs "Arriov d. x. Tpıöv raß.] Kai: and, 
respectively. Luke narrates from the standpoint of the travellers. These 
came first to Forum Appii, a village on the Via Appia, 43 miles from 
Rome, and then'to Tres-tabernae, Three-booths, an inn ten miles nearer to 
Rome ; in both places they were received by the brethren, who thus went 
to meet them in two detachments. As they had tarried seven days at 
Puteoli, the Roman Christians might have obtained information timeously 
enough in order to come so far to meet them with the speed of love and 
reverence. —eciyap. r. Gee FAaße Yapooc] How natural was it that Paul, to 
whom Rome, this éxitouy tic olxovnévyc’? had for so long been in view as a 
longed-for goal of his labours,® should now, at the sight of the brethren, who 
had thus from Rome carried their love forth to meet him, glow with grati- 
tude to God, and in this elevated feeling receive confidence as to the devel- 


sailed round about (Lange, comp. Smith). 7H otpatia, Cyrop. v. 3. 52; Plat. Lach. p. 


Luke does not express himself with charto- 4 Lucubr. crit. p. 98. [144 A. 
graphic accuracy. 5 Comp, Bengel. 
1 Asin Thue. iv. 30. 1, e¢ al. 6 See Bernhardy, p, 98. Comp. John xii. 
2 Herod. vi. 106. Comp. on John xi. 39; 13; Matt. viii. 34; Judith v. 4. 
Phil. iii. 5. 7 Athen. Deipnos. i. 20. 


3 Comp. Xen. Anab. vii. 2.1: éwémevov ext 8 xix, 21, xxiii. 11; Rom. i. 9 ff. 


502 CHAP, XXVIII., 16-21. 


opment of his fate and as to his new sphere of work ! According to Baum- 
garten, it is true, he saw at the same time in the Roman church, not founded 
by any apostle, ‘‘the identity and continuity” of the Pentecostal church—ot 
all which the text contains not a hint, as, indeed, such a fancy as to the 
founding of the church is by no means justified by the circumstances of the 
case being unknown to us. 

Ver. 16. The two praefeeti praetorio, commanders of the imperial body- 
guard, had the duty of providing for the custody of accused persons handed 
over from the provinces to the Emperor.’ That there was at that time only 
one praefect, namely Burrus, who died before the beginning of March 62, 
and after whose death there were again two, does not follow from the söngu- 
lar rö orparor, in opposition to Anger, Wieseler, and others.” It is to be 
taken as: ‘to the praefectus praetorio concerned,’’ namely, who then had 
this duty of receiving,* and to whose dwelling, therefore, the centurion 
repaired with a view to deliver over the prisoners. This does not suppose, 
as Wieseler objects, that the praefect received them in person ; he had his 
subalterns. — ka’ &avröv] for himself, apart from the other prisoners.* This 
special favour is explained partly from the report of Festus, which certainly 
pointed to no crime,° and partly from the influence of the centurion who 
respected Paul, and would specially commend him as having saved the lives 
of all on board. — civ ro. . . orparıorn] This was a practorian,° to whom 
Paul, after the manner of the custodia militaris, was bound by the arm 
with a chain.” I 

Ver. 17. On the interview which now follows with the Jews it is to be 
observed : (1) that Paul even now remains faithful to his principle of try- 
ing his apostolic ministry in the first instance among the Jews, and thereby 
even as a prisoner complying with the divine order of the way of salvation : 
"Iovdaiw re mporov Kai "EAMnvı, Rom. i. 16, and with the impulse of his own 
love to his people, Rom. ix. 1 ff., which the painful experiences of the past 
had not weakened. (2) He does this after three days, during which time 
he had without doubt devoted himself, first of all, to the Roman Christians.*® 
(3) The fact that he commences his interview with the Jews by a self-justi- 
Jication is—considering the suspicion with which he, as a prisoner, must 
have been regarded by them—natural and accordant with duty, and does 
not presuppose any ulterior design, such as: to prevent a prejudicial influ- 
ence of the Jews on his trial. (4) The historical character of these dis- 





ı Plin. Hp. x. 65; Philostr. Vit. scholast. ii. apostles. A disagreement between Paul and 
82. the Roman church (Schneckenburger, p. 122) 


2 See Introduction, § 4. 

3 Comp. 6 iepevs, xiv. 13. 

4 See vv. 23, 30. 

6 XXV..20, XXVi. 31. 

6 Grotius in loc. ; Krebs, Opusc. p. 151. f. 

7 Ver. 20. See on xxiv. 27. 

8 That Luke gives no further information 
concerning the Roman church cannot surprise 
us (in opposition to Zeller, p. 373), as the 
theme of his book was the ministry of the 


is not at all to be thought of; the church 
was not Judaizing, but Pauline. According 
to Zeller, the author has desired to make Paul 
appear as the proper founder of that church. 
But this is erroneous on account even of ver. 
15, where, it is true, Zeller understands only 
isolated believers from Rome, who are as- 
sumed therefore not to presuppose any church 
there, as referred to. See, on the contrary, 
Ewald, Jahrb. IX. p. 66 f. 


CONFERENCE WITH THE JEWS. 505 


cussions with the Jews has unjustly been denied, and they have been 
wrongly referred to the apologetic design of the author.! See the details 
below at the passages appealed to. — wera yuép. tpcic¢] in which he might 
sufficiently occupy himself at the outset with the Roman Christians who 
came to him, as doubtless, in opposition to Zeller, he did in conformity 
with his long-cherished desire to see them.’ — rov¢ dvta¢ rov ’Iovd. mp&rovg] 
the existing * chiefs of the Jews* i.e. the Jewish leaders at that time in Rome. 
— ovdév évavtiov x.r.A.] although I have done nothing, etc. This Paul could 
say, as he had laboured only to conduct the nation to the salvation ap- 
pointed for it, and only to bring the Mosaie institutions to their Messianic 
mAnpwoıc. His antagonism to the law was directed against justification by the 
law. This, and not the abolition of the law in itself, was his radical con- 
trast to the Jewish standpoint, in opposition to Zeller.°— rov ‘Pwyaivr| 
refers to the procurator in Caesarea, who represented the Romans ruling 
over Palestine. 

Vv. 18, 19. This observation of the apostle, disclosing his presence at 
Rome thus brought about as a position of necessity, completes® the narra- 
tive of xxv. 9. After his vindication’ we are to conceive, namely, that 
Festus expresses his willingness to release him ; this the Jews oppose,* and 
now Festus proposes that Paul should allow himself to be judged in Jeru- 
salem,’ whereupon the latter appeals to Caesar.*° —oty oc Tov i3vove . . 
karyyopeiv] thus purely on the defensive, and not in unpatriotic hostility. 
—éywv and the present infinitive (see the critical remarks) refer to what 
Paul has to do now in Rome. 

Ver. 20. Therefore, because I am here only as a constrained appellant, 
and entirely free from any hostile effort, I have invited you, to see you and 
to speak with you. Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Schott take it otherwise: “ vos 
rogavi, ut me viseretis et mecum colloqueremini.’’ But the supplying of 
me and mecum is arbitrary, seeing that, in fact, öuac and div are naturally 
suggested by the directly preceding imac; besides, it is far more in keep- 
ing with courtesy for Paul to say that he desired to see and speak with 
them, than that he had requested them to see and speak with him. — évexev 
yap tHe éAridoc x.7.A.] now contains the more special reason, in a national 
point of view so highly important, for the arrangement of this interview. 
— The éAric tov "Iopaya is to be taken entirely, as in xxvi. 6, of the Mes- 
sianie national hope. — On repixecuac with accusative comp. Heb. v. 2.1 

Ver. 21. This answer of the Jews makes it probable that Paul in his dis- 
course had definitely snggested that they might perhaps have received 
written or oral insinuations concerning him from Judaea.—It appears al- 
most incredible that neither took place, but we have to weigh the follow- 


1 Baur, Zeller. 8 xxviii. 19. 

2 Rom. i. 11 ff. 9 xxv. 9. 

3 Comp. Rom. xiii. 1. MWiso.q 75 101, 

* Comp. Luke xix. 47; Acts xiii. 50, xxv. 2. 11 Kypke, Obss. II. p. 147 ; Jacobs, ad An- 
5 Comp. on xxiv. 14. thol. 1X. p. 75; on Tr. dAvow Tavr., comp. xxvi. 
6 Comp. xxv. 25, 29. 


BERRY. 8: 


504 CHAR XXVIII. , 21,022: 


ing considerations :—(1) Before the appeal the Jews had no ground inducing 
them to make communications regarding him to the Roman Jews in partic- 
ular, because they could not conjecture that Paul, then a prisoner in Caes- 
area, and whom they hoped to destroy presently, would ever come into 
contact with their brethren in the distant West. (2) After the appeal it was 
hardly possible for the Jews to forward accounts to Rome before his arrival 
there. For the transportation of the apostle, which followed at any rate 
soon after the entering of the appeal,’ occurred so late in autumn, and so 
shortly before the closing of the navigation,” that there is extreme improb- 
ability in the supposition of another vessel having an earlier opportunity 
of reaching Italy than Paul himself, whose vessel in spring, after the open- 
ing of the navigation, had to sail only the short distance between Malta 
and Puteoli, and that, too, with a favourable wind.* (3) There remains, 
therefore, only the possible case, that during Paul’s two years’ imprison- 
ment at Caesarea evil reports concerning him might have come to the 
Roman Jews in some accidental way, not officially, by means of private 
letters or Jewish travellers. Indeed—considering the lively intercourse 
between Judaea and Rome, and the great noise which the labours of the 
apostle had made for many years, as well as the strong opposition which 
he had excited amoung the Jews—it can by no means be supposed that 
these labours and this opposition should have continued unknown to the 
Roman Jews.* But the mporo: of the Roman Jews here proceed with re- 
serve under dread of possible eventualities, and prudently fall back upon 
the official standpoint ; and so they afirm—what, taken in all the strict- 
ness of the literal sense, might certainly be no untruth—that they on their 
part (jueic) had neither received letters concerning him, nor oral notification or 
statement? of anything evil concerning him. The more impartial they thus 
appear and maintain a politic spirit of frankness, the more openly, they at 
the same time hope, will Paul express his mind and disclose his purposes.® 
Zeller therefore too rashly seizes on the seeming contradiction to truth in 
ver. 21, as warranting the inference that the non-historical character of the 
narrativeisevident.” The explanation also to which Olshausen has recourse 
appears erroneous: that by the expulsion of the Jews from Rome under 
Claudius, the connections, which the Jews of Jerusalem had with them, 
were broken off ; that only very slowly and secretly the Roman Jews re- 
turned in the first years of Nero; and that therefore those who were in 
Palestine were not properly informed of this situation of matters in Rome, 


3 xxv. 13, xxvii. 1. 

2 xxvii 9. 

3 xxviii. 13. 

4 It has indeed been thought that the Jews 
in their plot against the life of the apostle: 
might have had a motive for not allowing their 
exasperation against him to become notorious, 
least of all at Rome (see Lange, apostol. Zeit- 
alt, I. p. 106). But ever granting this arbitra- 
rily assnmed calculation on their part, the 
hostile disposition in Judaea was much too 
general (xxl. 21) to admit of control over the 


spread of the hostile report to a distance. 

5 €Aad.: “in sermone quotidiano.”’ 

6 Ver. 22. 

7 Comp. Holtzmann, Judenth. u. Christenth. 
p. 785, who suggests that the author wished to 
evade tonching on the wide opposition be- 
tween Paul and Jewish Christianity. But 
merely fo evade this point, he would have 
needed only to suppress vv. 21, 22, instead of 
putting such a surprising expression into the 
mouth of the Jews. 


CONFERENCE WITH THE JEWS, 505 


and accordingly made no notification concerning Paul to that quarter. 
Even a priori, such a strange ignorance of the Jews as to the fortunes of 
their very numerous countrymen’ in the capital of the world is very im- 
probable ; and, from a historical point of view, that expulsion of the Roman 
Jews had occurred so many years before, and the edict of banishment was 
at all events only of such temporary force? that the renewed toleration of 
the Jews, permitted either expressly or tacitly, is to be placed even under 
the reign of Claudius.* 

Ver. 22. ’Agioimev dé] But we judge—so as, in such lack of information 
from other quarters, to be better instructed concerning the circumstances 
in which thou art placed—it right *—as a claim which, as matters stand, is 
no more than right and proper—to learn from thee—rapä cov has emphasis— 
etc. — a dpoveic] &.e. what principles and views thou pursuest. — repi uév yap 
rac aipéa. tavt.| for of this party certainly.® raurnc has its reference in the 
more precise expressions, with which Paul must be presumed to have ac- 
companied his évexev yap tie EAridoc 7. ’Iapaga. In the u£v without dé the 
tacit contrast is to be mentally supplied: “ Although thou thyself art un- 
known to us.” ° The yép grounds the afıovuev x.t.2. on the apparently im- 
partial interest of obtaining more particular information.—At first view, it 
must appear strange that these Jewish zporoa in Rome betray so little ac- 
quaintance, or nene at all, with the great Christian church at Rome, which 
consisted, at any rate in part, of Jewish Christians. This difficulty is not 
solved by the arbitrary * assumption that, after the return of the Jews ex- 
pelled by Claudius, the Jews and Christians kept aloof from each other and 
thus gradually lost acquaintance with one another ;* nor yet by the circum- 
stances of such a great city as Rome, amidst which the existence of the 
Christian community might well have escaped the knowledge of the rich 
worldly Jews,*’—which, considering the relationship of Judaism and 
Christianity, would a priori be very improbable. It is rather to be explained, 
like the expression in ver. 21, from a cautious sort of official reserve in 
their demeanour, not exactly hypocritical ' or intimidated by the Claudian 
measures,!! but in which withal the Jewish contempt for Christianity gener- 
ally is apparent. The representation here given, according to which those 
Jews simply avoid any sort of expression compromising them, is by no 
means to be used, with Baur and Zeller, against the historical truth of the 
occurrence. Its historical character, on the contrary, gains support from 
the Epistle to the Romans itself, which shows no trace that in Rome Chris- 
tianity had been in conflict with the Jews;'? and therefore de Wette is 
wrong in his remark that, if Luke had only added «ai rap’ juiv to mavrayoi, 
there would have been no ground of offence (0%). 


1 Dio Cass. xxxvi. 6: Suet. Tid. 36: Philo, Gr. p. 313 (E. T. 365). 


leq. ad Caium. p. 568; Tac. Ann. ii. 85. 7 Comp. also on ver. 21. 

2 See on xviii. 2, and Anger, temp. rat. p. 8 Olshansen ; comp. also Kling in the Stud. 
118 f. u. Krit. 1837, p. 302 ff. 

3 See, moreover, on Rom. Introd. $ 2. 9 Neander. 

4 xv. 38. 10 Tholuck. 

5 As to aipeo., see on xxiv. 14. 11 Phi:ippi, comp. Ewald. 


® Comp. on xxvii. 21 ; also Buttmann, newt. 12 Sce Rom. Introd. $ 3. 


506 CHAP. XXVIII., 23-31. 


Ver. 23. Eig ryv Eewar] to the lodging, i.e. the dwelling which, after his 
arrival at Rome! he was allowed to occupy with a friendly host.” At a later 
period he obtained a hired house of his own.” Whether the £evia was the 
house of Aguila,* cannot be determined. — mAslovec] a greater number than 
were with him on the former oecasion. — reidwv «.7.4.] and persuading them 
of what concerns Jesus. meidwv is neither to be taken as docens with Kuinoel,*® 
nor de conatu with Grotius. Paul reaily did on his part, subjectively, the 
reidew, persuadere ; that this did not produce its objective effect in all his 
hearers, does not alter the significance of the word.* —aro . . . Tov vöuov 
«.7.a.]| starting from it, linking his reidewv to its utterances.’—The opinion 
of Béttger,’ that Paul was liberated between vers. 22 and 23 is refuted by 
ver. 30, compared with ver. 16, as well as by Phil. i. 13 ff., since the Phi- 
lippian Epistle was not written in Caesarea, as Böttger judges.° 

Vv. 25-27. ’AreAtovto] they departed,” they withdrew. The imperfect is 
graphic. — eimövroc 7. II. prua év] after that" Paul, immediately before their 
departure, had made one utterance. év: one dictum, instead of any further 
discourse : it makes palpable the importance of this concluding saying. 
Then follows this pyua év in the oratio directa (with or.) as far as ver 28.— 
karoc] because completely justified as appropriate by the latest result before 
them.’ — ro rvevua ro üyıov] ‘‘ Quod Spiritum sanctum loquentem inducit 
potius quam prophetam, ad fidem oraculi valet.’’!’—zpic rovg ratépac yuov] to 
our fathers ;'* for the divine command imparted to Isaiah, ropevdyre K.T.A., 
was as such made known to the fathers.—Isa. vi. 9, 10, almost exactly ac- 
cording to the LXX., has its Messianic fulfilment in the obduracy of the 
Jews against the gospel,’°—a fulfilment which Paul here announces to the 
obdurate, so that he recognises himself as the subject addressed by 
With hearing, auribus, ye shall hear, and certainly not understand ; 
and seeing ye shall see, and certainly not perceive. For the heart, the spiritual 
vitality, of this people had become fat—obdurate and sluggish, see on Matt. 
l.e.—and with their ears they have become dull of hearing, and their eyes have 
they closed, in order that they may not perceive with the eyes, or hear with 
the ears, or understand with the heart, or turn themselves, to me, and I, i.e. 
God, should heal them, of their spiritual malady, by forgiveness and sancti- 
fication.’—eiröv (Elz, ein) is oxytonon."® 





TOpPEVO ATL. 


TVier 116: (thinking possibly of his conversion) in the 
2 Philem. 22. hardening. as with nuorv in1 Cor, x. 1 (in op- 
SaVierso0: position to Baumgarten). It is the simple 


4 Olshausen, 

5 Comp. on xix. 8, 

6 Comp. on vii. 26; Rom. ii. 4. 

7 Comp. on xvii. 2. 

SP Beir alps ths 

® See also Wieseler, p. 411 ff. 

10 Polyb. ji. 34. 12, v. 98. 6, and frequently. 
11 Not when, see ver. 29. 

12 Comp. Matt. xv. % 

13 Calvin ; 2 Pet. i. 21. 

14 By nuov Paul as little includes himself 


expression of Israelitish fellowship. 
Rom. ıv. 1. 

15 Matt. xiii. 14f. ; John xii. 40. 

16 See on Matt. Z.c. 

17 On the expression, comp. Dem. 797. 3: 
Öpwvras N Opav Kal Akovovras min akoveır, 
Aesch. Prom. 448: kAvovres ovK 7Kovorv, Ja- 
cobs, Del. epigr. vii.1.4 f.; Soph. O. R. 371: 
tupdos TAT’ OTA TOV TE VOUY Ta T' onmar' Et. — 

18 See Goettling, Lehre vom Accent, p. 53; 
Winer, p. 50 (E. T. 58) ; Bornemann in loc. 


Comp, 


PAUL’S CAPTIVITY. 507 


Vv. 28, 29. Oiv] because ye are so obdurate and irrecoverable. — érz roic 
é0veow «.7.A.] that by my arrival at Rome this (rovro, see the critical re- 
marks) salvation of God, i.e. the Messianic salvation bestowed by God, which 
is meant in this prophecy, has been sent, not to you Jews, but to the Gentiles.‘ 
—avroi] they on their part quite otherwise than you. — kai axoboovraı] name- 
ly the announcement of salvation, which conception is implied in areoraAn 
as its mode.” «ai, etiam: non solum missa est iis salus, sed etiam audient, 
give ear.” Bengel appropriately observes: ‘‘ Profectionem ad gentes de- 
claraverat Judaeis contumacibus Antiochiae xiii. 46 ; Corinthi xviii. 6, nune 
tertium Romae ; adeoque in Asia, Graecia, Italia.’’—Ver. 30. év idio pio8dp.] 
i.e. in a dwelling belonging to himself by way of hire. This he had ob- 
tained after the first days when he had lodged in the £evia, ver. 23; but he 
was in it as a prisoner, as follows from ver 16, from kai azedéyero «.7.2., and 
from axwAitwc, ver. 31, nemine prohibente, although he was a prisoner.‘ To 
procure the means of hiring the dwelling must have been an easy matter 
for the love of the brethren, and support came also from a distance.* — 
rävrac] Christians, Jews, Gentiles; not merely the latter, as Baumgarten 
arbitrarily limits the word, while with equal arbitrariness he finds in ver. 
31 a pointing to the final form of the church, in which the converted Israel 
will form the visible historical centre around which the Gentile nations 
gather, and then the Parousia will set in. This modern view of Judaistic 
eschatology has no support even in Rom. xi. 27 ff. (p*). 

Ver. 31. Solemn close of the whole book, which is not to be regarded 
as incomplete.* The Gospel also concludes with a sonorous participial end- 
ing, but less full and solemn. —xkypiccwy x.t.2.| thus his word was not 
bound in his bonds.? — dkwAirwe]® ‘‘ Victoria verbi dei. Paulus Romae, 
apex evangelii, actorum finis,’’ Bengel (Q). 


Notes py AMERICAN EDITOR. 
(n®) Melita. V.1. 


When the passengers and erew of the ill-fated, stranded vessel had all safely 
landed, they discovered they were on anisland named Melita, or Malta, as it 
is now called. There can be no doubt that this was the island where the 
apostle and his companions spent the winter months. It has been objected 
that there are now no poisonous reptiles on the island, or brushwood of any 
kind, but both may have abounded at that time, when the island was less pop- 
ulous, and not fully eultivated. The people were not barbarous in any other 
sense than in using a different language, the Punic. Even at present the Mal- 
tese have a peculiar dialect, a mixture of Arabic and Italian. The inhabitants 
kindly welcomed the shipwrecked travellers, and, as they were shivering from 


1 Comp. Luke ii. 30, iii. 6. 5 Phil. iv. 10 ff. 
2x. 36, xiii. 26. 8 See Introd. § 3. 
3 Comp. Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. 24. 72 Tim. ii. 9. 


4 Comp. Phil. i. 7. ® Plat. Crat. p. 415 D; Herodian. i. 12. 15. 


508 CHAP. XXVIII.—NOTES. 


the wet and the cold, they built for thema fire. Paul, ashe did when on board, 
gave his personal aid, and gathered some brushwood or sticks, whence came 
out a viper which bit him. Allattempts to show that either the serpent did not 
bite Paul’s hand, or if it did, it was not venomous, are justly characterized by 
Alford as “ the disingenuous shifts of rationalists and semi-rationalists.”’ The 
natives seeing this, with some innate ideas of a righteous retribution, at once 
imagined he was a murderer, whom divine vengeance thus overtook. They 
expected that he would have fallen down suddenly dead. Sudden collapse 
and death ensue often from the bite of serpents. Shakespeare speaks as a true 
naturalist of the asp-bitten Cleopatra : 


“Trembling she stood and on the sudden dropped.” 
Plumptre, in illustration, quotes the following stanza translated from Lucan: _, 


‘*Nasidius toiling in the Marsian fields 
The burning Prestes bit—a fiery flush 
Lit up his face and set the skin a stretch, 
And all its comely grace had passed away.” 


No unpleasant results, however, following in the case of Paul, they changed 
their minds and said he was a god. Here the apostle during his stay per- 
formed many miraculous cures, which called forth the gratitude and gifts of 
the people. Doubtless also Paul lost no opportunity of preaching the great 
Healer, in whose name he performed such wonderful cures. About the month 
of February, a.p. 61, Paul and his companions started again for Rome, in a corn 
ship, whose sign was Castor and Pollux, twin sons of Jupiter and Leeda, re- 
garded as the tutelar deities, Oeoi owripec, of sailors, and described by Horace 
as fratres Helenz lucida sidera. The constellation Gemini, the Twins, is 
named from them. The ancients identified them with the phosphoric lights, 
sometimes seen on the masts of ships, which promise a fair wind and a pros- 
perous voyage, and which are now called the fires of St. Elmo. Touching at 
Syracuse and at Rhegium, they came, after a prosperous: sail of 180 miles, to 
Puteoli, which lies on the northern part of the Bay of Naples, and is described 
as one of the loveliest spots on earth. Here the apostle spent a whole week 
with brethren. 


(0%) This sect . . . spoken against. V. 22. 


The apostle received a most affectionate welcome from the brethren in Rome, 
Some of them having gone as far as Appia Forum and the Three Booths, distant 
from Rome respectively about forty and thirty miles, to greet him. His sen- 
sitive spirit deeply felt this kindness, and he was greatly cheered by it. At last 
his long-cherished desire to visit Rome is realized. But in a way he had never 
dreamed of. He had not imagined that ‘‘ when he went to the City of the Seven 
Hills he should enter it as a prisoner chained to a soldier of the Augustan 
cohort.’’ Yet in his visit to the metropolis of the world, trying, and seemingly 
hopeless as the circumstances were, Paul accomplished all that he had earnestly 
desired. For, as he writes from his prison, all that happened to him proved 
favorable for the furtherance of the gospel. He had not the same opportunities 
which he found at Athens or at Ephesus. No great hall or hippodrome or even 
synagogue was open fdr his ministrations, He was not even at liberty to go 


NOTES. 509 


from house to house, to the Forum, or the market-place, but he diligently used 
such opportunities as were within his power, and was eminently successful 
among the Gentiles, specially. with the soldiers who guarded him, and even 
with those of the royal household. Shortly after his arrival, he sent for the 
chief men among the Jews, rulers of the synagogue, and heads of Jewish fam- 
ilies, and, fearing they might have heard some reports injurious to him, he fully 
explained the cause of his coming among them as a prisoner. A time being 
appointed, many came to hear his account of the gospel of the Crucified, and 
a whole day was spent in the discussion. It must have been a striking and 
most impressive scene, such an audience in such a place, listening to a 
preacher in chains—the man and his theme alike wonderful. He spoke of a 
King whose kingdom was grander, more extensive, and more enduring than 
the Empire of the Cxsars. A fire was kindled in Rome that day which rap- 
idly spread thronghout the empire. The sect then so bitterly spoken against 
and so ably vindicated by Paul, exists still, and is winning its way to the 
conquest of the world for Christ. In his conferences with the Jews, the apos- 
tle exhibited the satisfactory and conclusive evidences of the truth of the gos- 
pel, unfolded the ample provision which it makes for all the deepest wants of 
the human heart, and illustrated the happy influence it exerts on all human re- 
lations and interests. He expounded and testified and persuaded them con- 
cerning Jesus. The majority did not favorably receive his message, but some 
were convinced and embraced Christianity. 


(e*) Two whole years in his own hired house. V. 30. 


All this time Paul was a prisoner of state, and all his expenses were, doubt- 
less, cheerfully defrayed by friends in Rome and elsewhere. During the day 
he was chained to a soldier, and, in the night, guarded bytwo or more. From 
notices in the epistles written during this imprisonment we learn that several 
Christian friends, some of whom were very dear to him, were with Paul—Luke, 
Timothy and Mark, Epaphras, Aristarchus and Tychicus. His chief employ- 
ment was preaching the gospel. Many a soldier who for six hours was chained 
to the arm of the apostle had occasion to bless God that such a privilege had 
been his, and not a few of them, doubtless, became true soldiers of the cross 
and spread the good tidings through the army, and, as a consequence, more or 
less over the land. Many of the brethren also ‘‘ waxing confident by his 
bonds, were much more bold to speak the word without fear.”’ 

From the salutation and allusions contained in the Epistles to the Ephe- 
sians, Colossians, Philippians, and Philemon, critics are generally agreed that 
they were written during these two years’ imprisonment. There is a simple 
grandeur in the concluding sentence of this history which is very impressive. 
““ The mention of the kingdom had been a matter of odium in the eyes of Pilate.” 
Now Rome bears its being publicly stated. ‘ The victory of the Word of God. 
Paul at Rome forms the (apex) climax, or crowning point, of the gospel 
preaching, and the end of the Acts which Luke otherwise might have easily 
brought on to the death of Paul. He began at Jerusalem, he ends at Rome.” 
(Bengel.) 

A great many reasons have been imagined why Luke concludes his narrative 
without giving any account of the end of Paul. Conjecture is as various as it is 


510 CHAP. XXVIII.—NOTES. 


vain. Some suppose that Luke intended to write a third treatise, but was pre- 
vented by his death ; others that the narrative was carried up to the time that 
Luke wrote. Plumptre with others suggests that the subsequent events were 
already known to Theophilus, who was an Italian convert ; but the most prob- 
able opinion is that Luke had accomplished the purpose he had in view in 
writing. The Acts give an account of the rise of the gospel at Jerusalem, and 
closes with its reception at Rome. The writer’s work was done; hence, “ with 
an emphatic and artistically formed sentence, he concludes his history.” 


(a!) Paul’s second imprisonment. 


However slight may be the grounds of direct testimony it has generally been 
believed in all ages, that about the beginning of the year a.p. 64, St. Paul was 
tried, acquitted, and liberated, and that after some years of liberty and labor, 
he was a second time brought a prisoner to Rome, and there suffered martyr- 
dom. The arguments in favor of a second imprisonment are drawn from two 
sources : the ancient traditions of the church, and allusions contained in the 
pastoral epistles. The unanimity of the ancient church on this point is very 
remarkable, yet it is by no means conclusive ; though such authorities as 
Clement, Tertullian, Eusebius, Chrysostom, and Jerome are quoted. The evidence 
to be gathered from the pastoral epistles is clearly in favor of a second im- 
prisonment. All who maintain the genuineness of these epistles are con- 
strained to adopt this view, or to resort to some more improbable suppositions 
to explain the statements they contain. On the genuineness of the pastoral 
epistles see Excursus IX. to Farrar’s Life of Paul, which concludes with the 
following sentence : “ Pauline in much of their phraseology, Pauline in their 
fundamental doctrines, Pauline in their dignity and holiness of tone, Pauline 
alike in their tenderness and severity, Pauline in the digressions, the construc- 
tions, and the personality of their style, we may accept two of them with an 
absolute conviction of their authenticity, and the third—the first Epistle to 
Timothy, which is more open to doubt than the others—with at least a strong 
belief that in reading it we are reading the words of the greatest of the apos- 
tles.” Fora reply to Davidson in his Introduction to the New Testament, in 
which he presents every argument against the Pauline authorship of these 
epistles and the credibility of Luke as a historian, and also to the suppositions 
of Renan, see Westcott and Leathes and Howson’s Appendix I. For the argu- 
ment drawn from the historical circumstances, the reference to certain heresies, 
and the advanced organization of the church alluded to and implied in the 
pastoral epistles, I refer to Morrison and to Taylor, who strongly advocates the 
certainty of a second imprisonment, and says: ‘‘ So without regard to tra- 
dition, and solely on the ground of the evidence which may be distilled from 
the pastoral epistles themselves, I have adopted the view that shortly after the 
time at which Luke’s narrative in the Acts concludes, Paul was set at liberty 
by Nero ; and that, after an interval of four or five years’ duration he was 
again carried to Rome as a prisoner and put to death.’’ Plumptre, in an ex- 
cursus appended to his Acts, says : ‘‘ If we accept the pastoral epistles as gen- 
uine, we are led partly by their style, partly by the difficulty of fitting them 
into any earlier period of St. Paul’s life, partly by the traces they present of a 
later stage of development, both of truth and error, to assign them to a date 
subsequent to the two years of the imprisonment of chap. xxiii. 30.” 


NOTES. 511 


The life of the great apostle, in the interval between the two imprisonments, 
is involved in uncertainty. He probably visited Asia, Macedonia, Achaia, 
Crete, and Spain. Jerome informs us that Paul was beheaded in the fourteenth 
year of Nero, a.p. 68, the same year in which Peter was crucified—Paul’s right 
of citizenship exempted him from that form of martyrdom. ‘Thus, in all prob- 
ability, died the most illustrious of all Christian missionaries, the prince of 
the apostles, the noblest of the noble army of martyrs.’’. Many ideal portraits 
have been drawn of this gifted, many-sided, wonderful, heroic, Christlike man, 

One writes : 

“ Courteous he was and grave ; so meek in mien 
It seemed untrue, or told a purpose weak ; 
Yet in the mood, he could with aptness speak, 
Or with stern force, or show of feelings keen, 
Marking deep craft, methought, or hidden pride : 
Then came a voice—St. Paul is at thy side.” 


Another writes : 


““The third who journeyed with them, weak and worn, 
a Blear-eyed, dim-visioned, bent and bowed with pain, 
We ıooked upon with wonder.” 
**So they came; 
So entered he our town; but ere the sun 
Had lit the eastern clouds, a fever's chill 
Fell on him ; parched thirst and darting throbs 
Of keenest anguish racked those weary limbs ; 
Ilis brow seemed circled with a crown of pain; 
And oft, pale, breathless, as if life had fled, 
He looked like one in eestasy, who sees 
What others see not ; to whose ears a voice, 
Which others hear not, floats from sea or sky. 
And broken sounds would murmur from his lips, 
Of glory wondrous, sounds ineffable, 
The cry of Abba, Father, and the notes 
Of some strange chant of other lands. 
So stricken, prostrate, pale, the traveller lay, 
So stript of all the comeliness of form, 
Men might have spurned and loathed him passing on 
To lead their brighter life—and yet we stayed ; 
We spurned him not, nor loathed ; through all the shroud 
Of poverty and sickness we could see 
The hero-soul, the presence as of One 
Whom then we knew not. When the pain was sharp, 
And furrowed brows betrayed the strife within, 
Then was he gentlest. Even to our slaves 
He spoke as brothers, winning all their hearts 
By that unwonted kindness.”’ 


“God buries his workmen, but carries on their work.” The emperors are 
dead. The Roman Empire has passed away. The City of the Seven Hills is 
shorn of her power and glory. The brutal and infamous Nero is remembered 
only to be detested and execrated, but the martyred apostle lives in all the 
churches of Christendom to-day ; and is revered by millions as the greatest of 
human teachers. The kingdom too which he sought to extend and establish, 
despite all opposition, is mightier now than when he proclaimed it. It isa 
kingdom which cannot be moved, for it is built upon a rock—on Christ Jesus, 
the Son of God, the Saviour of the world, who shall yet return and claim it for 
his own. 


512 CHAP. XXVIII.—NOTES. 


(rt) Evidential value of the Acts. 


On this subject Dean Howson has published a volume of lectures. The fol- 
lowing extract is from an article by Professor Matthew B. Riddle: 

«The study of the Book of the Acts suggests two very important points 
bearing on the historical accuracy of the Gospels. The most obvious one is, 
that if it is itself a true story,—even true in general,—the weapon used by the 
early preachers was fact,—fact about Jesus Christ, his life, death, resurrection, 
and ascension. 

“« Granting the exactness of the history we have, in its particular refer- 
ence to the main events of our Lord’s life, what is equivalent to a fifth Gospel. 
There is, too, this added element, namely, a more specific explanation of the 
purpose and significance of these facts. 

“Minute usages, topographical peculiarities, and kindred points, may be 
found in nearly every paragraph, and each and every such reference can be 
used as a test of accuracy. The test has been applied. Volume after volume 
has been written on the subject. Every journey has been retraced, every 
voyage has been re-made, for the express purpose of verifying the narrative. 
Sometimes it has been thought that the writer made a mistake, but in nearly 
every such instance renewed investigations, in a few cases new discoveries by 
travellers, have shown the accuracy of the record. It has fairly stood every 
test, and may well be regarded as the book of history (of all times) which has 
been proven most exact. Others may be as accurate ; none have been proven 
more so. It will be fair to infer that such accuracy would have been impossible 
had the book been written very long after the date at which its story ends, 
A.D. 63, thirty-three years after the death of Jesus Christ. This view is con- 
firmed by the use which the writer makes of the pronoun ‘we.’ Is it probable 
that he took the trouble to be so careful in telling the truth about towns and 
temples, harbors and currents, and yet carelessly left this pronoun to suggest 
a falsehood about persons? 

«Tt might be said that such a book could be constructed like a historical 
romance, after a lapse of fifty or ahundred years. But this isto the last degree 
improbable. Walter Scott and Thackeray have written the finest and most 
accurate historical romances, and Shakespeare has furnished the grandest 
historical dramas. But not one of these three geniuses has succeeded in con- 
structing a piece of literature which stands the test as the Book of Acts has 
done. Their memory constantly fails them, and their want of accurate knowl- 
edge betrays itself repeatedly. Were the Book of Acts a romance, its author - 
must have been a genius unequalled in literature. Of all the Christian centuries, 
the second century shows fewest men of genius; and yet we are asked to be- 
lieve that some one in that age polished up the Gospels into their present 
shape, and concocted the most accurate of historical romances. It is far easier 
to believe that Luke is the author of the work. 

“The ‘evidential value’ of the Book of Acts consists mainly in this: That 
it offers presumptive evidence of the strongest character in regard to the main 
facts of the gospel history, and in particular proves that the author of the third 
Gospel, being the author of this book also, is a writer of tested accuracy, who 
tells the exact truth about Jesus Christ. Knowing so well how to be accurate, 
if he is false in his story about Jesus Christ, he is wilfully and awfully false. 
One must be far gone in hatred of Christ and his cause not to shrink from this 
last position,” 









ot 
i y 


Nel | 





N 
un 


s 


Date Due 


re: 2 
‘ ; 





7 is a 
1A / Dr 
5 Het xh 
ET ae 
So eh a ee 
APs HARA 
” ere 
r aps « 
ro%’%e# 
‘ro! 0 
aA TH 
l ate 
g “ t 2 
„A Ly on 5 fd 
Sa === 
nw, 
A ced 


gr 
Le. 
i 

Oo} 

Ld 





road 
= > = 7! 
8» 
pO [PM ln 
vum Te | 
O} gilt bi fe] x 
| & a ere 
| rw 
\ I 
h {| i 


| 








